![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
I was just talking with a couple of friends who I have been playing poker with for the last couple of months (since I have been reading up and participating on this forum). I've been playing tight, not as tight as I probably should, but clearly tighter than everybody else at the table. They seem to think every game is 7CS No Peek (hyper-loose, no starting requirements, lots of bluffing). My success has been very good.
Both friends shook their heads in disgust at the way I've been playing. I was accused of only playing "can't lose" hands. I expected this. I get looks of incredulousness when I fold on 3rd St. One friend knows that he plays with more skill than I because he uses "card selection" (whatever that means) and bluffing. He's been the biggest loser so far.
Anyway, I've got the image, over multiple sessions, as the tightest player at the table. In the past, ante steals and bluffs have been completely ineffective (I've watched the others attempt) because they only reduce those in the pot from 5 or 6 to 3 or 4. Heads up is a very rare proposition. However, given my image I think I should test the waters with greater frequency. When I stay in, I get comments like, "Oh, he's gotta have something big." Or when I take a pot "Jon never stays in unless he's got a full house." These comments are made seriously.
In addition to attempting more steals and bluffs, I don't want to get to a situation where I can't find callers for my drawing hands.
Comments?
Jon, I agree with everybody but R.Z. whom I admire for his work (which also gives a small perverse satisfaction...). Don't adapt your game to make your friends happy. They know the rules and will certainly not make any concession if they knew better about poker theory.
I believe you can share what you have learned through this forum or books with your friends. I am sure that they will be interested to know how and why you play better than them. Buy them DS's or MM's books with your next winnings. You'll then have real friends with whom you can openly discuss poker theory. Believe me, that's great. On top of spending quality time w/ your friends, you 'll improve your game.
Anyway, good luck, even though it is not about luck..
i wasnt saying it is a normal folding hand. but the hand is only average against a bunch of opponents all of which have some kind of a playing hand. you will be out of position most times in the hand and will have playing disadvantages. certainly if your kicker is bad and one of those is out as well you must give thought to folding. in low limit its hard to get it headup, but sure if you can then the raise is a must. happy hollidays
Should this hand still be mucked against a bunch of opponents who will play most of the hands they are dealt?
Crazier Pinapple Hold'em? Lunatic Pinapple Hold'em?
My completely-unsubstantiated-by-knowledge-or-experience thought would be to follow Omaha high rules, modifying playable hands based on what your discards will be...
... because this is pretty much how Omaha plays, in effect, if you stick with good hands (without the backdoor options that might occur from runner-runner). The flop tends to knock out cards you'll be able to use, except for the strongest 6-way hands, so in effect you'll only be playing a 2-card hand after the flop hits...
Mix in a little video poker theory (discarding penalty cards) and you probably have a start???
For non-frenchies who never heard about aviation, I believe Aviation came from Aviation Club de France on Champs-Elysees where this game is played. I've never really liked the game but had thought about it a little to limit my loss when Aviation is called.
I don't think playing it with Omaha high rules is appropriate. You end up with a HE hand so you don't need to have all 4 of your cards working together. You can check an unraised flop with only 3 cards working together.
It is usually wrong to discard a high pair card in order to draw for flushes and straights since you'll probably end up short-handed (either after the flop or the turn). The point is that I've seen this game played pot-limit only, thus your implied odds are even worse for flush-straight draws.
I would raise pre-flop with AAJs or better, KKQs or better from any position, and would certainly fold anything less than AAxy in early position. Generally speaking, I would see the flop with smaller requirements than Omaha high starting hands but with (much) stronger requirements than any HE combination starting hands (to avoid facing 2 pairs on the flop with my high pair).
Chouch, I stand (sit?) corrected. I agree, this becomes 3 card Omaha (since the flop is the important part, when you move from 3-card to HE hand.
However, the Omaha Hi concept of all cards working together still applies, although more limited. As always in HE, hi pairs are good, but not as strong as they normally are.
Since more cards are out, more risk.. plus, more chance people can fill on the flop and attack your AA with their 2 pairs... as you clearly stated in your reply.
Easy E, I should have nuanced my reply. You're right, omaha hi rules still apply, but to a smaller extent. My main point is to avoid drawing hands unless flop is real good. Still, having more than 3 players after flop is rare (because the game is unknown and tourists just fold preflop) and pot-raise will almost kill your implied odds. So having connectors and suited cards is less important than in O hi, knowing that you're disciplined enough not to chase draw hands in that game.
My conclusion is that aviation doesn't pay often (maybe only when you have AA and pot raise preflop to collect the blinds), slows down the game because of the discards, thus hurts your hourly profits and should be avoided. On the other hand, people calling that game might be good fish in other games.
I'll be in Paris next week and certainly at the Aviation Club de France. Wanna join?
Browsed 7CSFAP a little and once again came across this advice. With two overcards behind you it is better to just call and see what happens.
What is the reasoning/math - math/reasoning behind this.
As an example: bring-in, 2 or 3 fold, you have split tens with something like a 7 kicker, there is a J and Q behind you.
I would almost routinely raise here and see what develops. I don't like calling here. I don't like calling when first to enter period.
Can you please elaborate.
I don't think you are reading the book correctly. Here is what we say on page 43.
"When you have the two nines (no matter what your kicker), one reason to consider raising with two overcards behind you is if they both fold you might get to charge a bad player with a smaller pair. Of course, this assumes that there are additional players behind the overcards.
But suppose you have
5c 5d 3d in this same situation. If you are going to play, you should only call, and folding is probably the correct option because getting the big cards out does you little good if a hand like two sixes stays in.
If there are three or four cards behind you higher than your pair, usually fold. Consider calling only with a high kicker or if your kicker is a straight flush card that's very live on both straights and flushes. (Or if you are in a game with a very high ante.)"
Perhaps you can give the exact reference and I'll try to address it.
Maybe a call then reraise to achieve headsup status or a call and fold if you think headsup is unachievalbe would be advisable in this scenario, but to raise and play muti-way is almost suicidal and to raise and fold is an unnecessary waiste of a bet. In stud no one play is correct for all situations but if you start with a call in this scenario 80% of the time you are playing closer to correct then to raise must of the time.IMO
"In stud no one play is correct for all situations but if you start with a call in this scenario 80% of the time you are playing closer to correct then to raise must of the time."
Drone,
This response is not meant to be harshly critical just a point for discussion. It is true that no one play is correct for all situations. However if you say that a call is correct %80 percent of the time you set the strategy for situations like this. You are saying that when you have a pair of T,s with a weak kicker and two overcards behind you that a call is correct except in a few situations. That, IMO, is just not right. In fact the correct play in the majority of situations like this is a fold. The exeptions will usually lead to a raise. A call is the third best choice here. I must make it clear that I am referring to mid limit stud. The limit David and Mason write about in 7CSFAP. In high limit stud, with a high ante, a raise may be the number one choice, but I'm only guessing there because I don't play high limit. In low limit stud with a lot of expected callers a call may be the best play.
With mid limit in mind you want to be in the lead when you enter a pot that figures to go heads-up. If you raise here and get reraised, or just called by an overcard, you are likely to be heads-up but behind. With a weak kicker this is a potentially disasterous situation. The worse thing that can happen, David and Mason explian this extremely well, is that you make two pair that are under pairs to you opponents high card (likely pair). A horrible situation in which to find yourself.
Vince.
Vince
"I don't think you are reading the book correctly"
Yes I believe you are right. I might have gotten this idea from an earlier version or some other source. In any case it seems to me that there is a good number of players who try to employ this strategy. (or so it seems to me)
Same scenario. Low card brings it in... two or three folds, and you are first to raise with a pair of tens.
There is a J and a Q left to act after you. One of them reraises and it comes back to you heads up.
Now..the BIG question...When do you give it up and when do you call?
Most would agree that with an A or K kicker, live and hidden in the hole, you have enough to call to fifth street and maybe to the river.
7SFAP seems to recommend calling as well with a straight flush card as kicker..like say 9sTs/Tc...although if the raiser has a Jack showing and has a probable pair of Jacks it hurts your straight chances and I'm NOT going to get into the merits of the two-flush again...you all know my feelings on this topic! ;-)
Seriously, I'd love to hear from some experts on this decision. What would be an easy fold?...and easy call?
How about a reraise.. ???
We all now the "nightmare" here to make Ten's up and lose to Jack's up.
Please make you answer specific to the stakes... I am thinking of 20/40. At 30/60 or 80/160 is there more to consider?
I hope to hear from Ray Z and others on this one
Good Luck
Jim Mogal
the main problem with folding is that good players see you fold after raising on third street and they will raise you back without the overpair. now you find yourself raising into overcards and then being outplayed. as the antes get higher in relation to the bets you natually call more. in smaller games or spread limit games it becomes an easy fold because of the small starting pot. i love a player on my right that wants to win the antes or protect his hand but isnt willing to go to the river and play a big pot.
Ray,
Surely you're not saying that you will NEVER fold in this situation in a higher stakes game (say 80/160)
In spite of the fact that "good" players will see you fold when the J reraises...isn't it still correct to fold if you "know" that the player who raises you in this situation will not raise unless he can beat a pair of tens?...especially if you do not have a good kicker?
Obviously, knowing your player is of paramount importance in this case. If it's a player who I've seen make this reraise with a three flush or some other hand that cannot beat a pair of tens it becomes an easy call..and I'll "take a stand"
Good Luck
Jim Mogal
I think I can get away with folding some of the time in my game. I also think that with my image in my game a call is definetely not as good as a raise. But I wonder if in a higher limit game with much better players it will swing for me. You said you like a player to your right who likes the antes but is unwilling to play a big pot and go to the end. I uderstand a player of your caliber Ray likes every player on his right but what if you knew that this particular player will play a big pot and will go to the end would that make you think twice?
Well actually I don't mean "you you you". I just mean a solid 75-150 player.
I don't consider myself an expert but I will offer a response. If you elect to raise and are reraise and you have a live 2 card straight flush then you would call the reraise on third street. Ray makes a good point about others taking a shot at you if you fold here but if you don't show your hands they could not be certain that you were not raising with a weaker hand so although I agree with Ray it is not the primary reason for calling. Let's look at 20-40 Stud. $3 ante 5 bring in. $29 in the pot when it gets to you and you raise. Now a $49 pot. Your opponent with a J reraises. $89 pot. You are now getting ~4.5 to 1 to take a card off with a live hand. No need to look at the number of cards that can help your hand. The pot odds are high enough to take a card off in this situation. I said no need to count your "good cards" because you may not be able to determine precisely what will help you and what will hurt you with this type of hand. The best thing to do is to take a card off and then play the hand as it develops. Of course I call in this situation but don't like my hand. For 30-60, probably the same answer. I don't play 80 - 160 but I imagine the correct third street play is to call or reraise with foding a distant third. Reraise may even be preferrable.
Vince.
Vince.
Vince,
I have one small quibble with your 4.5 to 1 pot odds.
How often will a player call the reraise on third street and then fold on fourth street.
Probably less than 5% of the time..when something really bad happens like your opponent pairing his doorcard.
My point therefore is that when you call the $20 raise you are "virtually" committed to another $20 on fourth street so its not really 4.5 to 1, its closer to 2 to 1.
Many stud players will make this calculation that they are getting 4.5 to 1 odds when in reality they are not.
Good Luck
Jim
My 4.5 to 1 reflects the odds you are getting to show some form of improvement on 4th street. Once you get to fourth street another estimate is needed. That said, your point about fourth street is well taken and certainly a factor in the decision process. Have a great Millenium.
vince.
A "great Millenium" I'm not sure...I'd be grateful for another half century.
Regards
Jim
Pessimist!
Vince.
Not 2-1 if you go to 4th. 109-40.
I didn't say 2 to 1, I said it was CLOSER to 2 to 1 than the 4.5 to 1 which is often quoted.
Jim Mogal
This happens a lot in the 10-20 games. I feel the play is determined by the knowledge of the other players. The knowledge of these players is even more important than the odds at 3rd street.>BR>
In a tight game, I will raise almost always with T's and a big kicker(> what is showing). Most players I play with know that so, I will often (depending on position and up card) raise with T's and a low kicker. Most times I win the antes or get head up with a straight or flush draw with a high card, otherwise why would he draw to a straight or flush head up? I consider it about a 15% hand. If I pair my door card, they will most likely fold. If I get trips I am in the driver's seat. If I get nothing, I might get a check. I win a lot of antes that way. That's nice because the rake on antes is virtually zero.
I raise because I want people out. I raise because if I get called, I'll probably loose. If called, I make my decision based on (1) who called (2) the cards out (3) my guess of what people stayed with. There is no absolute except if there are 4 people to speak and 2 higher cards, I will always fold.
If you get caught steaking antes, the good players will crush you. Change tables when that happens.
In a loose game I will folds about 90% of the time
Does anyone has any comments on these programs? Which is better?
AceSpade asked me to review their programs, and sent me free review copies of the Holdem and Omahi Hi programs. So I was predisposed to giving them a good review.
Unfortunately, I couldn't. The software is slow, the user interface is bad, there are very few features (very little customization, no simulation modes, etc). But most importantly, the advice the program gives is horrible, and the players play very badly. They try to imply accuracy by giving you actual EV results for folding, calling, and raising, but this is a gimmick, because a little math quickly showed me that their numbers are completely bogus.
I refrained from publishing a formal review because after I sent my comments to the company they promised to re-write parts of the software. But I haven't heard anything more about that.
Until a new version comes out, my advice is to stay far away from their Holdem and Omahi-high programs. I have not seen the seven card stud product.
Thanks Chris, I expect that "live" poker is the best way. I have played some Holdem on line and it sucks most of the time. Everyone stays. Everyone is broke. I simply have not tried Paradise Poker, and frankly do not want to go on line with "their" software. If a company lets me play without downloading their stuff to my machine, then I'll try.
Probably easier to drive to AC (60 miles) and play, but for now the Turbo is OK. I suppose you can configure it to play tougher and see if the advisor changes. Mabye I'll document some problems and approach Wilson Software with suggestions, but probably I'll just do nothing as usual.
I have all the turbo programs and I think they are invaluable tools. The thing is that you must understand the limitations of their use.
Turbo 7CS is a great way to get experience and play stud before risking real $$. It does have its limitations though. The players on the computer are not really that good. I suggest setting the computer to randomly bring in (and seat) new opponents so you do not unconsciously "learn to beat the computer". Also, do not pay attention to how individual profiles play. Treat each hand as a "theoretical situation" for you to analyze, but keep in mind that some skills are only learned in live games (such as reading people and tells). Consider that in live games the same situation might be played differently against different opponents. use the programs to get good at calculating pot odds vs. your chances of improving or of having the best hand, and making such decisions quickly. This way you will spend less mental energy "calculating" while at the table and more mental energy watching the players.
Chris I think is right about TTHE being a better overall program, but both are still well worth the effort to practice on.
The advisors (on all wilson's programs) are just flat out wrong SOME of the time. If you can clearly identify the times when they are wrong, then you are gaining the skills necessary to evaluate such situations when they come up in real games.
The bottom line is that the programs are fun to play and useful for learning, but you must understand their limitations and use them properly.
Dave in Cali
" Your example would look like this A3678 is 87,631. A4578 is 87,541. Thus 87,631 is the lower of the two numbers making it the lower hand."
Acid Forum Returns
87631>87541>87321>76543>76542>76541>65432>65431>65321>64321>54321
Paul
I confess. Been doing too much citric acid to fight colds, etc. 87,541 really is the lower number.
Florida Sunshine Acid will get you every time.
paul
Folding may be the correct play 56% of the time, but you are only saving a couple of bets when you are right, and forfeiting an entire pot when you are wrong.
Touche`. We are playing poker to win the highest possible amount of money not the highest number of pot. Leave that to the tourtists and the amateurs.
That would be true in pot-limit, but is it still true in a very loose limit game?
If both games are loose-passive, I would think your positional advantage would be greater in limit holdem than in limit Omaha High. When several players see the flop, players out of position in Omaha High have much more information on where they stand than players out of position in holdem. Having the button preflop in holdem allows you to escape domination or manipulate the pot size; the advantage of the button preflop in Omaha High is smaller.
Positional advantage is only useful if you're actually in the hand. And Omaha High gives you a much better chance of actually being in the hand, since there are many more playable hands before the flop.
I'm completely with Badger on this one.
Sox, You may not care for my inexperienced opinion (compared to DS and RZ), having never played without qualifier in real (read: casino,not home) games, but... why let THAT stop me?
As I understand/see it (in my very limited experience), the big difference is that with S/8 the strong low hands aren't as strong (as they were without the qualifier rule) for several reasons:
1) A fair amount of hands will be counterfeited- you don't get the guarantee of the low with the freeroll high anymore as you used to with non-qualifier. 2) You're up against more people (compared to old S/8, from what I understand) who feel they DON'T have to play the "play only for low" rule... and don't get punished for it as easily (See also Ray Z's comments in 7S8FAP) 3) High-only hands can put a more pressure early and on 4th than non-qualifier setups, especially since they have some decent possibilities to scoop and don't have to worry about 9 and 10 lows splitting half. Thus THEIR aggression against your 4th st. brick is not punished as much as it used to be.
Thus endeth the barely-experienced opinion of a low-limit player. I await the improvement/fleshing out and/or chastisement of my simpleness from the Big Guns of 2+2 (and others)...
Non-qualifier is a game to fleece suckers. With a two-way low hand, you have a complete freeroll against a high pair or Razz hand. The qualifier makes the high hands much stronger, and puts a balance in the game. You often (not always) have to go to the river with your two-way low draws, or with the high hand you're playing against a low draw. If the game is played well, the high hand applies a lot of pressure on third and fourth, forcing lows to put in a lot of money before their hands are really defined, and raising the variance considerably.
Look for a post from Izmut F. a few months ago about this comparison (original on rpg- i moved it over here with Izmut's okay). He bought the AceSpade program and basically buried it with his evaluation.... which was an unbiasd evaluation, from the reading of it. Izmut compared Turbo HE vs. AceSpades HE, as I remember...
This occurred after someone was spamming the heck out of rpg and 2+2 about AceSpades, which pissed both of us off because they weren't saying anything significant or offering real proof.
Having now purchased almost all of available Wilson products (factor that into your bias evaluation), I'm a big fan of Bob's stuff. Upgrades are cheaper, also, compared to AceSpades' posted prices.
My recommendation (never having seen anything but AceSpades' website) based mainly on Izmut's eval is go with Turbo.
I am using Turbo a lot. I have adjusted the players and made some "typical tables". The advisor is actually better than I thought. I think that the program makes one think about playing. It has pointed out some errors and traps that I sometimes fall into. Considering the cost of our computers, our line charges and other computer relatse stuff, the $90 for Wilson 7CS is worth a shot. At the very least it's fun and entertaining with no crashes. It loads on the hard drive. Not copy protected (Have one on my machine at work and at home). The Wilson people deserve a buy. (unsolicited, don't know the wilson company, and I am rather critical of most software)
Looks like this forum doesn't keep messages that far back so I'll just take your word for it. I found "Sozobon Seven Card Stud" on the Internet and am going to try it out. It is free. Any comments aout it?
yes Jim i stand corrected its really two bets if you get raised back. now to correct you. it was a jack and a queen behind you. big difference. i hope all that carribean sun hasnt done too much damage.
Sorry Ray..that was a typo on my part..I meant to say J AND Q ...I would still raise here with a pair of 10's.... If I'm first in I am still favorite to have the best hand.
Greetings from the year 2000
Jim
Six players are in for four bets with no 2-flush on board. If the opponents are at all rational, you are likely facing 98 and a straight wrap in addition to some low draws. I agree with you that "extra outs" are important, and that many players don't give sufficient consideration to their value. But in this specific hand, I would attach very little value to that pair of eights. An eight doesn't give you exceptional equity here, and you might be losing to 98 or to a straight or flush on the river. (If the board was K84 rainbow, that's something else, or if fewer people took the flop.)
In a recent Omaha/8 session, I won but not based on the following hand. In the Big Blind I held KKTJ and got in without a raise (a mistake?) with three others. The flop came KAA. I bet to feel out the field and got two callers. I figured each of these held an Ace, but probably not with the K. What I didn't realize at the time is that if one caller held Axyz and the other Abcd, then there are 18 OUTS that can beat me. Thus, with two cards to come I was a full 2/1 underdog, even correcting for the slight chance of the fourth K.
The last two cards were blanks, 9 and 7. I bet the turn and river, got one caller who beat me with Aces full of sevens. I guess I was not raised because he may have feared I held AK or A9.
Question: as the supposed 2/1 underdog, do I check the flop and give them free cards, or bet and face the eventual consequences.
Maurice - I like your bet on the flop. Once you get two callers after the flop, it looks like you have two opponents with aces. Good (but frightening) information.
I don't think you should bet the turn. Wouldn't anyone without an ace have folded after the flop? Well, maybe someone had 2,3,4,5, but, if so, they will probably fold to any bet made after the turn and are no threat. You may not be quite a 2 to 1 underdog, but you are an underdog for sure. (If your opponents have another common ranked card besides the aces there are 14 outs against you).
However, after you bet on the turn and get two callers, now, if there was any doubt at all in your mind after the flop, it's certain that each caller has an ace.
Therefore, you definitely shouldn't bet the river. Your bet is neither a bluff, nor a semi-bluff, nor a value bet. What are you trying to accomplish by betting on the river? Would you call if raised on the river?
After your fine bet on the flop, you got good information. But then you didn't use that information. What you did was like having a hypothesis, doing an experiment to test the hypothesis, and then not relying on the results of the experiment when making your conclusion.
Or perhaps you hadn't thought about this particular scenarilo beforehand. Perhaps you didn't realize until afterwards that when there is a pair on the flop, more than one full house is common in a full game. If you don't have (1) a pair higher than the pair on the board and matching another card on the board, or (2) a card matching the highest card on the board plus a card the same rank as the pair on the board, then you probably shouldn't lead.
However, I must admit that I have done the same thing, as if caught up in a momentary trance.
Buzz
You are not quite 2-1 since they may duplicate cards. How you should play this hand depends to a large degree on whether they are capale of raising without a full house, what they will call with on the end if you bet, and what they will bet on fourth st. if you check. Basically this is an extremely complicated situation. On the other side of the coin, against most players, the strategy of betting until you are raised and then folding if you are, will usually be close to optimum.
Does anyone know of a decent lowball program that could help me preprare to take on live lowball games in LA? I am a strong holdem player but I have almost no lowball experience.
If you are running a Mac, the iPoker shareware has a lowball game. I don't know if it would serve your purpose. It's modifiable, but you have to mess with it a little to get the set-up you want.
Thanks, but I have a PC.
TWIMC,
Playing 5-10 .50ante 2bringin. #3 brings it in 4,5,7 drops. #8 calls, I raise #1, #2 calls, #3,#6 drop, and 7 calls. I'm in #1 seat with Qh2c/Qd, #2 passive tight (PT)has xx/Ac, #3 xx/4d tight, #4 xx/6c drops, #5 xx/9h drops, #6 xx/8s drops after raise, #7 xx/9d drops, #8 xx/7h loose aggressive (LA).
Three way 1,2,8. I get a Qh2c/Qd2s, 2 gets xx/AcTd, 8 gets xx/7h7d. 8 bets out, I think for a second and decide to raise. 2 drops and 8 calls. Fifth street He checks on 5 and I bet. Qh2c/Qd2sJc, xx/7h7d5c. Sixth street Qh2c/Qd2sJcJh, xx/7h7d5c3s. I bet he drops.
Thinking after this might not be a bad ploy to use sparingly in the right situation. Especially if you want to get head-up and you have a passive tight behind you. Even if door 7's has trips at least you know right away when he raises you back, in this situation I would call, but with just Q's I think I would also call.
Paul
i tend to do rather poorly when playing against an opponent who pairs his door card. especially with one pair. probably worse with two pair as i may go farther and lose more. i guess i might have played on with queens up but i think id play the crying call game here.
I would have thought this is a raise or fold situation (even more so if you only have one big pair). If you raise and are reraised, a fold would be in order. If the 77's call as in this case, I would bet again and fold if check-raised. It seems this strategy would be less costly than making crying calls to the river.
I think something like this comes up alot in low limit, and I think it revolves the read of the 7's. Normally, in a higher limit or NL game, I would drop assuming he probably has trips (no 7's showing, he called my apparent queens). Your raise combined with his call and his lack of a check raise would tell me I (you) had the best hand. If he raises you back, do you call?
I am a low-limit 7CS player. My opponents will often semi-bluff when they pair their doorcard, but will not follow-through with a reraise unless they have trips. (They would often wait until 5th street to raise with trips.) Therefore, I would fold if they three-bet me on 4th street...unless my out cards were live and I was feeling desperate!
TWIMC,
Thanks for your answers. I normally wouldn't raise into the 7's, but I felt if I called PT would of called also. LA was betting freely for about 2 hours winning some pots on the last card catch system (LCCS). If LA reraised me I think I would of called, since we would be heads-up. If PT called my raise and LA raised then I'm definitely out. If PT called my raise and LA called then it's a dogfight to the end. My theory was to take charge of the hand if PT dropped and LA called. It happened in this case and I'll be sure to post the next time it backfires.
Thanks Again Paul
Paul: It's a good play against certain opponents. However, against the maniac or tricky/good player who can/will reraise without trips, Ray Zee's crying call method is the best.
In this particular situation, you raised for information, and if you are re-raised you should muck. If you are not going to use the information you paid for then call it down instead of raising.
Fred
Is Ray Zee's crying call strategy (against a good/tricky opponent) significantly better than folding on 4th street? Would it still be superior if one of your four out cards was dead?
IMHO it would still be right to make the call if two or three or even all four of your cards are dead!
There are enough chances that Queens up is the best hand to justify calling to the river.
By the way I wouldn't feel as strongly about Jacks up or less...but Aces, Kings or Queens up deserves to be handled in the way Ray Z recommended regardless of whether the pair cards are live or dead.
Good Luck,
Jim Mogal
MJS:
It is my experience that a good player will bet his paired doorcard regardless of what he has in the hole. Just enough to keep you guessing
Fred
My feelings too if he is in early position and has not shown weakness. If he does, and everyone folds except 1 player, he have some interesting decision to make that will effect future hands. Play to the river? Fold if other player pairs?
Why not come down to AC in March and give a talk at the At-Large seminar. Might be nice to hear something new.
What you might try is a conference call. I've thought about it, but can never find anyone who is the same speed as I so when I took a lesson from David it was Private. I made sure I got it on tape though.
When you think about it, you really don't need to have a good Poker teacher in sight. You just talk and go over your weak spots.
I also took phone lessons for No-Limit and Tournament play from Bob Ciaffone, which were very good also.
What about Mason and Ray? I’ve been very impressed with the information Ray has been giving about Stud recently. Hopefully, this guy at least puts some more of his knowledge down on paper before a Bear eats him!
I take it that Mason is just too busy?
Later, CV
I think Ray's info is straight and to the point, somewhat of a pragmatist. Ray seem more like a high limit guy, probably out of my range. Dave is the theorist and "what if guy". Mason looks like the #2 math dude and writer. All 3 make up a good group. Frankly, I had in mind a seminar attended by a lot of people like a scientific meeting style. Probably never happen because of too many egos (not necessarily those of the participants as much as the organizers)
For Omaha H/L, is this probably the best book I should get? I have about 50 to 100 hours in the game. Thanks.
Yes. And he hates me.
paul
thx Pf ilu
How much is an autographed copy? heheh.
BobA928674 was the last s/he to have his book signed by Z. If you want to become a statistic as UKW boba928674 be my guest. The phrase below may help you decide because this is your last place of residence before surgery that you will remember.
"The first place on earth that your new life will begin will be when the light first hits you as it passes through the half-moon slot in Ray Zee's Outhouse."
Good Luck MM
paul
Ray's book is good and you'll probably want to get Bob Ciaffone's Omaha Hold'em book as a suppliment. If you order it directly from Bob he will autograph it.
Michael,
ray zzzzzz's book is great and a must have. However, it is orientated for the tougher high limit games. For low limit Shane Smith's book will help you get ahead of 95% of the field. I do believe Mason helped correct some mistakes in the earlier edition and now it is at least a fair book (right up there with the Lee Jones Holdem book - oops!).
P.S. To ray zee: Why did you combine this book with the stud split book? You could have had two different books and sold them for almost as much but more for both. Then you wouldn't have to live in a cave and could afford child support for Brenda what's her name baby.
Ok Thanks. By the way, I've read Lee Jones Book....OOPS! And also Theory of Poker by Mr.Slopansky. It really helped me learn how to badger my opponents.
Well I ordered the dang thing today. Man that hurts, as tight as I am. Do you offer the same $400 money back guarantee as another fellow I know?
MM,
"Man that hurts, as tight as I am." The operation will cure that too.
fep
To put an end to this dreadful thread, (which I started), I liked Theory of Poker, and I'm sure I will enjoy the Omaha H/L book also.
just leave your address and my friend kazinski will write you.
I played about 6-8 hours of 7cs hilo friday night. The game is 1-5 spread with no ante. I played extremely tight, probably to tight I think I prob played a total of 8/10 hands the entire night. I have a question regarding a couple.
first Q?-- I was dealt rolled up 6's, one other player had come in after the bring in. I raised the max $5, and both players folded. I showed my hand to an frien before I threw it in, and he strongly suggested that I should have slow played this hand. Is he right? I'm used to HE, and tend to always bet trips fast, is this something I should change?
Second one seems easier. I had a made low on 6th street, another plaer has 2s3h4s5d showing, the high hand bets he calls, and I fold my low. On 7th street the guy with the apparent low folded his hand when it was checked to him. Did I do the correct thing by folding?
thx for the help
since there was no ante you may want to let someone in with 3 sixes. if you are only going to play one hand an hour against such bad players you are costing yourself money (profit). the second one is easier. you probably should have gone out sooner facing the wheel cards with just a low hand. if your low was a seven or better you may want to call on 6th if the player was one that could have most anything in the hole. by 6th street there was a bunch of bets out there and it would be hard for me to fold for one more with no indication i was beat.
I read with interest your post regarding selecting Omaha High in a dealer's choice because of the greater value of position in that game. I was wondering if you would recommend that I should make the same choice given the following information about me and the game:
Typically 5-7 players, very loose, tends to run in streaks between passive and aggressive (probably more aggressive). Stakes typically 5-10.
My discipline level: High
My math skills: High
My memory skills: Average
My people skills: Average - I'm good at not giving out tells (I'm neither an "actor" nor a "lamb"), but I'm weak at picking up other people's tells.
In casino play, I played (4-8) holdem almost exclusively for about 2 years and was moderately profitable. In mid 1998, I read an article by Shulman which convinced me that O/8 best suited my skills. That decision proved correct as my winning rate in 5-10 O/8 is somewhat higher than in holdem. I have MUCH more FULL table experience than the rest of the players in O/8 and Holdem, but minimal casino experience in Omaha High.
The following is my advantages relative to the other players for each game in this Dealer's Choice game. "Knowledge" refers to my having read much more books/magazines than my opponents (and my access to forums such as these). "Experience" refers exclusively to short-handed play.
Omaha/8 ---- Knowledge Adv.: Large;;; Experience Adv.: Small
Omaha High ---- Knowledge Adv.: Moderate;;;; Experience Adv.: None
Holdem ---- Knowledge Adv.: Large;;;; Experience Adv.: Moderate
I don't know if this is relevant, but I'm also a tournament chess player - not quite as good as Harrington, but close.
Thanking you in advance for the advice.
If I could choose absolutely any game, it would be pot limit Omaha High.
I've been searching for a bankroll in So.Cal, for some months now. My bankroll is too small for the middle limit games, but the lower limit games are unbeatable due to the drop.
However, I think I might have hit on something by playing Omaha eight or better at the 6-12 level and below: Not only are fewer hands dealt, and thus, less money goes down the chute to the house, but you have better control over your bankroll because it is so hard to pick up four coordinated cards, and it is so obvious (in these games) that you are beat when you are beat and drawing dead when you are drawing dead. I have played O-8 in the casinos only a dozen or so times, and thus am certainly no expert, but I have only lost twice out of that dozen.
Is this the only beatable game in So. Cal that is spread below $10-20 and thus has a drop? Does it make sense that it might be, or am I just getting lucky?
(By the way, I think this game may be the most boring game spread in any house...but there are so many action players in this game that while it is very simple, there is no shortage of cash available for the taking.)
Chris,
I think 6/12 holdem is beatable for about $18 per hour and the 9/18 for a bit more so long as you play very well in loose games (which you must work at to stay in) but your SD will be very high.
With a small bankroll, Omaha H/L is the nuts. There are many who can beat it at the 3/6 kill level for $15 per hour or so and the SD is very low. BTW, always look for the loosest game. Each loose player just adds to your EV in an almost linear fashion. And your swings hardly go up at all (unless it is crazy pre flop).
Regards,
Rick
I had exactly the same experience and have been playing 6/12 O/8 for about a year with steady success. There is something about the very structure of O/8 that begs many players to play poorly. I attribute this to the fact that many O/8 players have recently came over from Hold Em and thus look at a four card O/8 hand as six Hold Em hands. This is a serious flaw but nevertheless a common one. Most players are also way too loose after then flop. I have no idea how long this wonderful sitation will continue, however.
In order to stay on course, particularly after losing sessions (which I DO have), I consult my copies of Zee's dissertation which I keep at my livingroom chair and at my bedside.
Yes, this used to be quite popular at 4-8 in Gary, Indiana when the jackpot was big. There were 3 games going and some 10-20 too. Very poor play. Sadly, I think the whole thing is dying, there's never more than 1 4-8 game, and no 10-20 anymore. This is with a $5 rake + $1 jackpot drop + tip at the 4-8.
Has this happened elsewhere? I saw that the biggest games in Joliet and Aurora were H/L split, is this still true?
"....playing Omaha eight or better at the 6-12 level and below: Not only are fewer hands dealt, and thus, less money goes down the chute to the house, but you have better control over...." HANG ON a sec! Given the drop in a low-limit game hurts your finances BUT, if you're a good player, you want to see as many hands per hour as possible ....which raises your hourly potential and cuts down on the snooze factor.
I'm still a bit suspicious about a)0/8 smaller variance than holdem. And whether it really has a bigger EV if you play correctly.
I sued to play a lot of low limit 0/8 and all but gave it up as I started doing much better in Holdem and Since o8 is so slow it seemed Id never make up for a bad hand for a long time.... It seems you win more often in 0/8 but alot of the time you win a split pot. It is often very hard to scoop or 3/4 an opponent(s) and this is where the money is at...
I think the game going slower hurts your "EV" if you are a good player, you want the game to be fast as you shoudl be theoretically be winning more money per hand thus more hands is more EV.
NOt only is Omaha slow bc everyone has 4 instead of 2 card but no one eever seems to remember what the y have. the flop comes play a has to think for a minute and realize what he has. Maybe Im tainted but this cam be infuriating when youve waited forever for a poetential scoop turn the nut flush w/ an uncounterfietable low draw and the board pairs and you lose mega!
Then everyone is playing so slowly you realize ho w much longer you have to wait for another hand you can play...
I was wondering if people who play both games have stats to compare HE to O/8 or even stud...
A few questions regarding the lower limit (3/6-6/12) Omaha games being spread in California:
1)How much should a player make to be considered successful? one big bet per hour on the average? more?
2)What would one guess the biggest money maker in these games is earning? Badger said he knows of a guy who has been beating a Commerce game for $50 an hour for over two years. Is that basically the most one can hope to take out of that game?. And would that basically make you the top money earner without question?
By the way, it is true that 2/3 of the players in these games are horrendous. If you have patience and can mentally handle taking your share of bad beats, you have a big shot at success.
But that leads me to one last question: How is Omaha/8, if played right, any less boring or dull than playing hold 'em or 7 Stud/8 if played right? To me, none of them are a laugh riot.
ask yourself why you play...for laugh riots or money.
Thank you both for your input. Of course, I understand your choice of Pot Limit Omaha High because position is far more important in Pot Limit & No Limit as opposed to Limit. It would not really be practical for me to choose this in my game because of the modest financial resources of most of the players involved i.e. I might win big that night, but at the cost of killing the game.
This discussion of "positionality" of a game prompts me to ask the following question. I have seen in several sources the statement that O/8 is not as positional as Holdem. I have no reason to disagree with that statement. However, in one source I saw the statement that Limit Omaha High is not as positional as Limit Holdem. Do you agree with that?
Incidentally, the reason I don't name the particular source is that I get the impression that there is a certain amount of politics in the Poker world and it is not my intent to start any wars.
Regards, AX
If the Omaha High game is completely loose-passive while the holdem game is moderate, holdem will be more positional. Where I play, this is the case.
Even if the holdem game is very loose also, one advantage in position in holdem is that it gives you much more information than your opponents. In Omaha High, even in early position you know where you stand relative to having/drawing to/redrawing to the nuts. In holdem, where flopped hand and target river hand strengths vary greatly, the action in front of you gives you information on where you stand relative to the field. Early position players in holdem have much less ability to play their hands effectively.
There are more playable hands in Omaha High than holdem, and so you still might call Omaha High even though it has a slightly lower positional advantage (since the chance is so much higher that you might actually get to enter the hand and make use of that advantage).
I was searching for a place to play 7CS on-line and the only place where one can play for real money is in Costa Rica. Is it illegal to have an on-line poker room in the USA? Does anyone know what the legal requirements are?
Oh, I think I'd play at a Costa Rica site. Why not just go to a Mac machine in the Bowery in New York, turn your back, pull down your pants and take let everyone know you are taking out a lot of money.
I did not quite understood you irony. Are you implying that because they are a long way from here a. they will not pay you your winnings b. the game will not be fair c. someone might see your cards?
Would trust an on-line poker room operated in the US more?
Don't let the rat man scare you, John. I play at Paradise Poker and Planet Poker and have only positive things to say (because I am winning). If I was losing then they are no good foreign thieves and swindlers.
The rat man. I like that. Think I'll change my name to that. Go ahead play poker on the internet because someone you do not know says he is winning. How do you know I've been to Costa Rica? Because I said I was? Do you know me? Maybe I was only in Guatamala.
Fellas, you can play on internet poker sites in terriera del fuego or Othotsk, Russia for all I care, and I hope you all win, really.
Unfortunately, Planet poker has only Texas and I prefer 7CS. Only Paradise Poker has it. Connection is not that bad. I am just surprised that noone else offers it with so many online casinos.
The Sky is falling!These sites are completely honest. It is untihinkable that programmers would intentionlly design faults into their systems to increase the take of the insiders. Just as Las Vegas was totally honest always. Organized crime has nothing to do with gambling, never has and never will.
#1 the law would not protect you in case of fraud
#2 I've been to Costa Rica-love it for vacation but would not want it for internet poker. Our internet connections suck. Imagine the connections in Costa Rica. #3 I don't trust ANY internet poker
I've been playing poker in the cardrooms in Arizona for over a year now, playing basically every game they spread. I've started to play in the mix game here. Among the games they usually spread are hold'em, omaha hi and omaha8, any any (which is stud hi/lo without a qualifier), and crazy pineapple hi/lo.
I have always been quick at picking up any poker game and learning the basic strategies, i.e., how to win at it. But crazy pineapple just blows me away.
Does anyone here play this game? Personally i see it as a complete crapshoot, an equalizing game if you will. From what i can tell, if you are heads up, you should always call with every low hand if there's a low out since it is almost impossible to scoop both hi and low.
What are some general strategies that people have developed for this game?
An A is a very powerful card. "Don't leave home without one." The last time I played 3-6 with a kill I won $2200 in ten hours. I have never played again. I agree with Badger %100. I would also include holdem hi-lo on this list.
Do not play high unless you have at least 2 pair on the flop. Low doesn't come as oftenas Omaha(fewerCards) good starters can both ways. Big pairs go down in value unless you strip before the flop.
4 handed stud, with the following players:
Player A, loose and aggressive, fairly good player, but tilts easily and goes crazy, likes to gamble.
Player B, solid pro, tight and somewhat aggressive, but fairly unimaginative.
Player C, me.
Player D, very loose, passive, a big loser in this particular game at the time.
3rd street is as follows, A: (??)Kh, B: (??)6c, me: (AhAd)9c, D: (??) 9s.
B brings it in, I raise, D calls, A folds, B reraises, i rereraise, D calls, B calls.
At this point i put B on a pocket pair higher than 9's, as this is the only hand I've seen him play this way.
4th street: B: (??)6c4c, me: (AhAd)9c6s, D:(??)9s2d.
I bet, both call.
5th street: B: (??)6c4cQc, me: (AhAd)9c6s4h, D:(??)9sd2dJd.
B bets, I call, D calls.
6th street: B:(??)6c4cQcAs, me:(AhAd)9c6s4h3h, D:(??)9s2dJd5c.
B bets, I raise, D folds, B calls.
At this point I'm sure i'm in the lead. The only hand i was afraid of out of B was QQ in the hole, and obviously he would have reraised with that.
7th street: I catch Qd, no improvement.
B bets out, I fold.
What would any of you have done differently?
By George, I would have called him on the river. Your Aces, as you said are probably best. QQ in the hole is bad, but since you hit a Q on the river, QQ is less likely for him now. With the odds you are getting from the pot, I would think that a call is warranted.
Player B, solid pro, tight and somewhat aggressive, but fairly unimaginative.
Player C, me.
Player D, very loose, passive, a big loser in this particular game at the time.
I think you should look at how B played the hand and see how well he played and then replay your hand but let him dictate the betting. You might take on his style of play for this type of game.
Paul
"Player B, solid pro, tight and somewhat aggressive, but fairly unimaginative"
You show: (xx)9c6s4h3h
You put this solid pro on a pair higher than 9's and then you reraise. What do you think that he put you on? You raise again on 6th street. Yeah you might have him beat but do you think he does not know what you have especially when you are showing what you are showing. What are you representing?
A lot of fairly unimaginative pros will try to pick your pocket here. But you might know better, I highly doubt it though.
I think unless you NEVER fold anything on the river you almost have to call him.
My guess is that you saved money. He looks like a flush on the river to me. Only 2 clubs out. He is not afraid of your possible straight. He was getting very close to correct odds to call with 4 clubs up to the river. The pro might have put you on aces unimproved. He could have busted if he figured you would fold with a bet from him.
Overall, I would have called and expected to loose (a crying call). I would have said, "see that's what happens with pocket aces--aces suck".
I would like to see his cards first since he made the first agressive move. He has to show first.
The exact hand i put him on when he bet was a pocket pair with a 4-flush. He is a fairly straightforward player and i don't believe he had it in him to bluff right there. And i'm hardly known for laying hands down at the river, especially in stud.
I actually try this same bluff occasionally, betting into someone on the river who would bet one pair the whole way and then fold it unimproved on the river, and it works often enough to be a good play. I've never seen this particular player do it before though.
You were getting 14 to 1 on your call. Can a pro resist 1:14 in a great bluffing spot against most? I don't know.
I would have raised on fifth street if I was pretty sure that he started with a pair and therefore now has(at most) a pair and a four flush ..(very small chance of three queens)
I would raise here because I think AA is still the best and I don't want the third player in the pot to continue with a draw or a small pair.
If I get reraised...I now know I was wrong in my initial read...and depending on the player I can give up here.
Good Post...what were the stakes by the way?
Jim Mogal
75-150
Another stud hand against player A from the previous post.
3rd street: me(AhTc)Ts, opp: (??)Ks
I bring in, he raises, i call. He raises the bring in 100% of the time heads up. I considered reraising.
4th street: me(AhTc)TsTd, him(??)KsJh.
I bet the max, he raises, i call.
5th street: me(AhTc)TsTdQs, him: (??) KsJhJc.
He bets, i call.
6th street: me(AhTc)TsTdQsQd, him: (??)KsJhJc4d.
I bet, he calls. At this point i put him on either kings up or trip jacks, the latter being more likely.
7th street: I catch 3d.
I check, he bets, i call.
The main question i had here is how to play the river.
if i thought he would now bet kings up or better which is usually the right bet here if the two pair checks i would check raise. most bad players would only bet if they filled up so you may want to check and call or fold. i would have played the hand much faster with two more bets early on.
I too would have played the hand faster with raise on 4th and 5th. By 7th street, I would not get too cute and probably check and call. I would not fold even if he bet, and I would not raise.
I was torched last week by quad 7's against Kings full (with 5's) on 5 cards. He got the last 7 on 6th street and did not have a full house, so he was chasing trip kings with trip 7's.
I thought about raising on 5th, but i decided to wait till 6th assuming he didn't catch a scary card. Do you think a raise on 5th is better here?
I couldn't raise on 4th because I bet...
re read your own post. you could raise on four and five. thats what id do. dont back off big hands unless you have good reason to believe you are beaten.
Ray,
What about third street? If the guy with the K showing will raise with ANYTHING heads up isn't it a good idea to make it three bets right away with AT/T ?
Again , Nice post by George, but it would help to know the stakes you were playing.
Regards
Jim Mogal
sure Jim if he will raise with anything id pop him back with att but to guarantee you play properly you must also pop him back with many other weak hands that you might not rather. it may be better to call since he wont have a perfect read on your hand and since he has the over card you can get run out if he catches big ones later on. also by reraising he will check to you and you wont be able to get a double bet in later when you really got him.
Ray,
You mention in your post that one reason for NOT reraising with AT/T against a K who will "raise with anything" is (in your words) "... also by reraising he will check to you and you wont be able to get a double bet in later when you really got him"
My point is that if he is weak and not really super agressive...he may not even lead into me on fifth street anyway...so I won't get a chance to raise him!...and if he DOES continue to lead...I may not want to raise since a pair of tens may no longer be the best.
If I think he will raise on anything with a King showing on third street, I think my best chance to get a raise in is right there on third street where his ego might prevent him from giving up on a steal effort that has gone bad.
I realize that this decision is very situational and depends on the stakes of the game (which was never stated in the original post) and on your knowledge of your opponents.
Regards
Jim Mogal
Jim,
Another stud hand against player A from the previous post.
3rd street: me(AhTc)Ts, opp: (??)Ks
I bring in, he raises, i call. He raises the bring in 100% of the time heads up. I considered reraising.
4th street: me(AhTc)TsTd, him(??)KsJh.
I bet the max, he raises, i call.
5th street: me(AhTc)TsTdQs, him: (??) KsJhJc.
He bets, i call.
6th street: me(AhTc)TsTdQsQd, him: (??)KsJhJc4d.
I bet, he calls. At this point i put him on either kings up or trip jacks, the latter being more likely.
7th street: I catch 3d.
I check, he bets, i call.
The main question i had here is how to play the river.
3rd street is as follows, A: (??)Kh, B: (??)6c, me: (AhAd)9c, D: (??) 9s.
B brings it in, I raise, D calls, A folds, B reraises, i rereraise, D calls, B calls.
A does fold if pushed. Jim you may have been able to drive him out, but as Ray states let's go to fourth street, this guy isn't going anywhere, so we'll wait and see. Reraising on 4th having trips makes more sense than reraising a K on third with T's. George didn't reraise here, so from this point on the hand is not the hand I would of played or Ray or quite a few players on this forum for that matter. When you don't reraise in this pos'n you subject yourself to the pair of jacks. That's alright if he paid extra to get them, but it's not alright if you let him.
paul not ray
When I am low, I usually decide before looking at my hand whether i'll reraise him if i play the hand. so it would be difficult for him to get a read on me. I found that this works well in disguising my hands since basically my calling and reraising standards on 3rd street are exactly the same.
I don't reraise him very often though, because he likes to overplay his hands, and I find that sitting back and letting him bet my hands is better than me raising him with a good hand and having him fold his bluff.
George
After reading this post and the one called "A 7 stud hand" I think you need to be more aggressive on the river.
If the guy raises 100% of the time, you can't put him on a hand. Just hammer him at every opportinity. Especially after you made the trips.
As for the pocket aces in the other post, I agree with everybody else. A check-call here is a must.
It's worth one bet just for your peace of mind. In other words, if it bothered you enough to post to the forum, you should have called.
Fred.
He had trip jacks that he caught on 5th street. I feel that the correct play would have been for me to checkraise the river, knowing that he'd bet if he could at all beat my queens up on board.
I'm going to help the games dry up.
Looked at some old records, and I'm averaging about twenty five dollars per hour in these games (but only after fifty five hours).
And sometimes I know I made a bad play...
I intend to get better.
There is almost no sense in even watching the hands you're not in after the first half hour, because in less than that time, you can get a pretty good sense of who plays poorly and why, who slow plays the second nuts to get you to bet the third, etc....
This also makes it dull.
Speaking of the guy who has been winning an average of $50 an hour for two years at 6-12, you said you attribute that to "extreme luck."
Can someone really beat Omaha for two years for that kind of money mainly due to luck?? And especially for the amount of time he logs at Commerce. (You said he always sits in seat 3, so I assume we're talking about the same person. three-letter name, glasses, bit of an east coast accent, lives in south OC now??)
And if he can win that much mainly due to luck, what would a top player do to that game??? Which leads me to this question: Why are you no longer playing in that game?? Allergic to easy money?? With all due respect, if this guy is beating the game, you would have to murder it.
However, you did say he was the devil, and that's pretty much the nuts.
is crazy pineapple the game where you play holdem with 3 cards and discard 1 after the flop? Is it usually played hi-lo?
Could you elaborate on why there is such a high "random luck aspect in crazy Pineapple.
thanks
Todd
My roomie came home last night from an Omaha/8 4-8 game, and we were discussing some of the key hands from the session. One hand in which my friend was not involved caught his attention, and he asked me to post the hand on the Forum for comments from the Omaha/8 fans about the quality of the betting from the hand.
Game was fairly passive for a change. The action is usally loose, aggressive, but last night it would be classed as loose, passive as the "shooters" must have taken the night off. Seven people limp in on this hand, but the key players were in the last three seats, and we'll call them A,B, & C. Flop comes down 8c-4c-4s. Action is checked around to A, who bets out. All 7 players call.
Turn card is the Qc, completing the club flush, but still no low. Checked to A, who bets again. B and C call but only 2 of the others fold. River card is the Js. Checked around to A, he now checks, and B bets. C calls, the other two limpers fold, and A calls.
It might have been usefull to withhold the actual hands to give everyone a chance to "read" what each of A,B, & C actually held, but as this post is a dissertation on the betting, I will give the hands right now. Player A had pocket 8's and my buddy couldn't remember what his other 2 cards were (not sure if he had a rough low draw). Player B had flopped Quad 4's, and he did not have a low draw. Player C had pocket J's as his main feature, also with no low draw. Questions:
1. Player A's bets on the flop and turn are pretty automatic, IMO. I personally like his check/call on the river, but would anyone have bet out the river and/or check-raised?
2. What about Player B? IMO he's guilty of leaving several bets on the table. Who would raise the flop with quad's, and who would wait until the turn? In this particular case, if he raises the flop, he probably loses at least a few of the low draws, but in this game, I have found the players will chase even non-nut lows in the face of raises, so who knows? If he doesn't raise the flop, how can he possibly just call on the turn?
3. At first glance, I was surprised Player C just called the river bet when he makes Jack's full, but thinking about it in more depth, it makes sense. From his point of view, that river Jack couldn't have helped Player B more than him, yet B came out firing. In fact, in the post-mortem, C said that he had suspected Player A of going for a check-raise. He was right in one respect; he was beat on the hand - he just had the wrong guy picked out. Personally, I wouldn't have made it past the flop. There are 9 small bets in the pot when it gets to him and he has what appears to be a 2-outer at best for possibly only half the pot. Why would I call?
Flame away, group.
I don't understand player C with the jacks full. He hit the perfect card on the river. If he can't raise at this point, how can he even call the turn?
Of course, I guess it's hard to assume rationality from a player who plays for a 2 out high, or thinks that J's up is really the best hand.
What a lovely game you have. Don't ever teach these guys to bet.
If i have aces full of kings should i fold? or bet? I often get beat by 4 aces.
Im confused
Always fold. The risk of quads is simply too high. Also, play at my table
Ratso's advice is especially true if the game is Omaha8 where most of your opponents will stay with any Ax where x<9.
I would be tempted to make a crying call if the river brought the last A, but if that was the case, you certainly should not be in to the river with AA on the board and KK in your hand.
Not that I know anything about omaha though.
Todd
...where's my fake id?
One other thing, what is it about stud/omaha/etc...that makes almost no one want to talk about its strategies, as they do with holdem?
Just looking at these forums, there are many times more posts about holdem than all other games combined, say 5 times as many or more. While, in card rooms, there are definitely not 5 times as many holdem players.
What is it about holdem? Personally i enjoy the game of stud infinitely more than holdem, and i was a holdem player almost exclusively for almost a year. Stud has so much more to think about, it seems that it also offers the greater advantage to the good player. Players tend to have more habits in stud and are often much, much easier to read.
I'm glad there are always many bad players that choose to play the high limit stud games, more so than I ever noticed in the hold'em games. Sometimes I think many of the pros want to play holdem because the toughest competition is there and they want a challenge. I don't know really. Who can explain this?
Speaking for myself, I would rather watch paint dry than play omaha 8 or better. That game (at 10-20) is ssssllllloooooowwwww and very bbbbooooorrrrriiiiinnnngggg. Stud fatigues me much much quicker than holdem due to the fact that I have to memorize what cards are gone and that my eyes have to roam all around the table (at the all of the other players' board cards instead of just the community cards).
Do you think that the average hold'em player is better than the average stud player, or vice versa?
Which game do you think is easier to beat?
Which game do you think offers the highest win rate to a good player?
According to Mason Malmuth in Poker Essays, omaha 8 or better offers the highest hourly returns relative to the risk ("bankroll requirements"). Check it out.
George,
>>Which game do you think is easier to beat? >>
I've been told at high limits it is different, but at 10-20 and lower, I find the skills needed are different. I can't read players as well as some people can, but I can count dead cards and do the math on the fly, so I have a better hourly rate at stud than I do at Hold 'em.
DJ
I think that there is more analysis in the holdem board because it is a lot easier to apply statistical analysis to holdem than stud. It is also much easier to remember the particulars of the hand. I think these two issues account for the bulk of the difference.
In addition, You could argue that it is easier to find the "correct" play in holdem that in stud, especially with the first two cards. Since there are shared cards you know what the nuts are, and how you compare to the nuts, how many outs you have to the nuts, etc. I am sure all of us have had full houses beaten on the river in stud, I think this ismuch rarer in stud that in holdem since the board can flop high pairs or trips giving multiple people huge hands (though not compared to their opponents huger hand)
I wish there was an easier way to analyze stud. Like "low 3 flush one after the bring in". But this is unlikely, since in holdem the flop makes you a complete 5 card hand in one fell swoop. It is easier to analyze your flush draw, than in stud when you catch an off suit on 4th, and you want to discuss what are the situations where you should play on vs. when to fold. I can be done, and DS, MM, RZ do a good job in 21century stud book.
But there is an opening here for more analysis, and I think it rests on all of us to try and take notes during our sessions, or remember the particulars of the hand in order to analyze them later. I will do that this weekend with some hands I played last week in Indiana.
Todd
One thing going against stud is that you get fewer hands per hour, so the casinos tend to rake these games more. Here in Canada, stud was almost as popular as Hold 'em at first, but the casino raised the rake to 10% to a maximum of $5.00 (this is for 1-5 stud). A 3-6 holdem game has a 5% rake.
It's very, very tough to beat a 1-5 stud game with a 10% rake.
I really wish Omaha High would become more popular. In my opinion, a good Omaha High player can make more money against a field of average players than a good Holdem player can make against the same field.
And yet, the variance in Omaha high is higher, so the fish still get to take some big wins, which keeps them coming back. And, you can play more hands without losing your shirt, so it keeps the average players happy.
Frankly, I think Omaha High is dying out because the rocks hate it (because of the variance), and these are the guys that not only start the games and keep them going, but they also have the loudest voices and complain the most when things aren't to their liking.
There is a $20,000 Jackpot at the moment, but it's only if Quad 10's get beaten by a better hand. This IMO makes Player B's play even worse. Even if A hit his 1-outer for the case 8, all that would happen would be a raising war, and no Jackpot.
passive is an understatement. I would check for pulses from all three players. I personally can't see what A & C are afraid of. There should have been at least one raise by each since they had big full houses. In the long run they lost a lot of value bets. Player B should have put in raises all the way in my opinion since in loose games the low draws will call.
I would have lost a lot more with A, folded C and made a lot more with B.
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
Player A is the dealer in 5 card draw Jacks or better. On the first round Player B,C and D all check. E bets and everyone calls.
1. Who gets their cards first on the draw. The player to the left of the dealer (player B)? Or the opener (player E)?
2. Who opens the bettting on the second round? Player B or E?
3. If in a home game I call this game when it's my turn to deal is it to my advantage to call a real small ante? Every one plays too loose. With a large ante are they inadvertenly playing better?
first player to the left of the dealer gets to draw cards first in all poker games of merit. also he would be first to bet after the draw. small ante hurts the loose players. jacks is a folding hand in jacks or better in most spots. if you dont understand the game well you would do much better with holdem.
Thanx Ray. I'm having a home game (next to impossible since the CT casinos opened) and I wanna pick the game that gives me an advantage right off the bat. I am a Hold'em player but a lot of the guys hate it when I call that game. Particulary the players in the blinds. They all like 7 stud and draw. So I figure I'll call draw with a small ante when it's my turn.
Is there a place (link) I can get a list of common poker rules that I can apply at my game? I checked my 2+2 books and could'nt find anything comprehensive.
id try the library as there are a bunch of old out dated books like holyes rules and stuff that gives rules for crazy games. someone else may be of more help as i know there are some rule books out there.
You might try Lowball (5-card draw where the worst hand wins). The dealer has a large advantage and the strategy is fairly simple.
I'm certain that if you do a search on the net you'll find a couple of thousand sites with the rules of popular card games.
Begging to differ.
JG
Could you be more brief? And after you are, with a response like:
Yes
Could you please then articulate your opinion?
Thank you very much for all of the great analysis on teh holdem board.
Todd
Sorry I was running out the door Friday. Here's a longer exposition:
1) I've made quite a bit of money playing crazy-pineapple make an 8.
2) There are definite strategic considerations.
3) Not everyone is aware of these, and there are definite variations in skill level.
4) I won't be goaded into sharing too much more as some of the people with whom I regularly play read this forum.
In summary, it is worthwhile to learn how to play this game.
JG
Alright, I might have my fact/perceptions/memories wrong here, and I have too short an attention span today to navigate the archives, BUT didn't someone dismiss the notion of beating 3-6 for $10 an hour and now is foisting the notion of aspiring to beat 4-8 for $30 an hour? Is this to be attributable to difference in money reapable in O8 visavis HE? If so I don't buy it. Once again, apologies if I'm out of it.
JG
Where do you play?
I know in Arizona, there are maybe 1 1/2 to 2 times as many hold'em games as stud, at the most.
For several months now, Lucky Chances in Colma has been spreading a pot limit Omaha8 game on Tuesday evenings (5-5 blinds)(in conjuction with a weekly limit Omaha8 tournament). I would like some advice from Badger and others about this game. I just don't see any sustainable profit in this game.
I have played once. What I gather is that the game only goes on for a while if there is a fish in the game. When I played, I actually won $700, but I realized I was a fish, so I quit.
I won most of that money on one hand. I flopped a set of Kings against three other players who had nut low draws, nut flush draws, and wrap straight draws. (And each of the other players had several of these at once!) I got everbody all in on flop, and made quad Kings, with no low. Whohoo. But I am not sure I did the right thing. (Maybe it was ok - I was getting 3-1 on my money, and they somewhat counterfeited each other, but paradoxically, if I was heads up, my implied odds would have been worse!)
For example, in another hand, a local pro flopped a set of Kings but never bet it. I flopped the nut low draw with a pair of Aces in my hand (no Ace on the flop), turned a set of Aces (making a low on the board), and rivered quad Aces (making him Kings full of Aces). He folded on my bet and said he was happly to get away from the hand for only 35$. If he had put pressure on my, I don't know if I could have seen the turn. However, he may have been taking into account that I would make "fishy" calls.
So, can this game be profitable, especially against fairly tough players? How would you play?
It seems reasonable to try to see a lot flops cheaply with good hands, but what should you play if there is a pre-flop raise to 25$ or 35$?
"So, can this game be profitable, especially against fairly tough players?"
No, unless there are total idiots in the game.
"How would you play?"
If the money is deep, just play extremely tight, both before and on the flop. Very few hands have call odds on the flop. A dry A2 or A3 is usually not worth playing preflop, and an A2 low draw on the flop with nothing else is usually a fold.
"This (pot-limit Omaha-8) is the lamest game ever. This is a contest in who plays tightest."
-Iceman
so your playing in a pot limit game that you dont understand well and are playing against good players and one of them folds kings full to you when you bet and you let him know you had him beat. how do you suppose to ever win in this game. not only do they play good but you tell them how you play. sorry to be so hard on you but it seems to be a recurring thing on this forum that many of our posters have to show how they play to their opponents then ask for advise on how to play.
Actually I never told him what I had. Remember, the low was out. I just bet, and he folded with the comment.
Foxwoods and the major Atlantic City rooms are about 75% stud.
Omaha/8 4-8 game last night. Game texture was fairly tight for a change, with often only 3-5 players seeing the flop. Much different than the usual style in this game where nearly everyone seeing the flop is the norm. Pick up T-T-9-5 rainbow in BB, a truly horrid piece of trash, but no one raised pre-flop, and on this hand, 8 players saw the flop of 8-7-6 rainbow.
Now I'm still trying to get more experience in Omaha/8, and reading posts here and RZ's book, I read about cases where you can flop the nuts but have to bail out. I realized that despite my nut high straight on the flop, my hand is very vulnerable. Any card 6 thru T is a potential problem, and I am going to get half the pot at best, but there are already 8 small bets in the pot; I do have 2 Ten's in my hand making it less likely that someone else also has the high straight; I feel I want to start putting pressure on any runner-runner flush draws, so I bet out to see what happens.
Six people call; only 1 folds. No raises. These guys seem to be programmed to not raise with nut low hands, so given the fact that no one raised, I do not feel there is another T-9 out there at this point. Turn card is Ad, changing nothing on the high, but putting a diamond draw on the board. I bet out again, and I caught a tell from the player on my immediate left. He hesitiated slightly before putting in his chips, and I read him to have made a nut low with a 2-3 in his hand. Everyone calls, no raises.
River card is Js. At this point, I am certain that I have the nut high by myself, but I was virtually just as certain that LHO had the nut low. Here is where I probably fell from grace on the hand. I checked the river, trusting my judgment that LHO had the nut low, and that he would bet out. I reasoned that if this player did indeed have the low, he should realize that no one else had a nut low, given the lack of raising on the turn with 7 people still in. Therefore,I'm thinking: "He bets, traps any 2nd or 3rd nut lows in downsteam, and I can get in a check-raise to increase my profit on the hand." Hand gets checked out.Oops. LHO had the 2-3, just as I felt, plus the added feature of a rough diamond draw. There were a couple of 2-4 and 3-4 lows, and I am not sure how much extra money I might have made if LHO had bet the river.
Now I realize I made a mistake on the river. If I bet out and get a couple of crying (low) calls, I will make an extra few dollars. I got greedy and got punished accordingly, but I have questions about this hand, and would welcome criticism from the more knowledgable Omaha/8 aficionados.
1. Was it correct to bet out on the flop? I wanted to start up the action, hope I would get raised, and 3-bet the flop to put as much pressure as possible on the draws. Or is this type of play -EV with this type of board?
2. Did LHO make the correct play smooth-calling the turn when he made the nut low? I would have raised to protect my holding, and try to force out any other rough diamond draws in case the flush came on the river, giving me chance for a scoop.
3. Is LHO's check on the river correct? If it is, then I clearly erred in not betting my high hand. If the concensus is that he should have bet out, then if my read on his hand was accurate,which it was, is going for the river check-raise reasonable, or still a bad play?
It is these little nuances of the betting in Omaha/8 I'm having trouble with, or am I trying to read too much into things?
with so many in the hand it pays to push it. since they are so passive and never raise you must bet all good hands out. if the players were aggressive i would be careful with the straight but with your group you can easily tell when you are beat. both the high and the lock low should have been jamming on the last two streets.
While a made high with no redraws on a flop with a low is nothing to write home about, in this situation you have a game where there are several people putting dead money in the pot on each round, hoping that their goofball 3rd and 4th nut lows will somehow be good. It's a feature of almost every pot you'll be in. In a situation like that, punish them.
Like Badger, I don't see a problem with going for a check-raise. Sounds like a smart, alert play to me. Most people with a nut low will certainly bet if it's checked to them. You just got unlucky.
I like your going for the check-raise on the river. It just didn't work. What amazes me is that when this situation DOES occur (you check, nut low bets, you check-raise), you STILL get several calls from the fourth low, trip sixes, two pair, etc. Even if they have to call two big bets cold. At least you had a pretty good handle on Mr. check-the-nut-low for the rest of the game---you certainly know he's going for high if and when he DOES bet!
everyone is preoccupied with the checkraise on the end. why do you think the guy will bet for you. Dunc said nobody bets and the guy with the nut low didnt raise on 4th street. why take a chance and give up the bets on the end hoping a bad passive player will bet your hand for you. there are seven players in there. just bet your hand and if they call thats great. if he decides to raise even better as some will call double bets cold and you can reraise again.
In an earlier post, some cited examples of people earning more than five big bets an hour in small O-8 games over the long run. This doesn't seem possible. If it is, what would be the explanation for it? Are the games that much better? Is it harder to get into the long run when so few hands are dealt? Does a good player end up with so much more equity in the pots due to the fact that your draws are often multiple (I find myself often in situations where on the turn I know I have the worst hand, but i am a favorite to take at least half the pot on the river)? Is it the Kill?
Just theoretically curious.
No way can anyone make that much money, even before accounting for overhead, i.e., rake and tokes, which by themselves are one to two big bets/hour, depending on venue. Certainly it may happen in the short run, but cashing out $200 ahead a couple of times in a row doesn't mean that you're some kind of poker genius and that you've got the game by the balls. The fact of the matter is that the unusual feature of o/8 is that more starting hands are playable in this game than in almost any other poker variant. This causes large fluctuations--much larger than other games at the same limit--and short-term good results may convince a person that he is the Jedi Master of Omaha and can somehow double or triple the earning rates of the top pros (as a function of bets/hour). Believe me, reality sets in eventually at this game as well as any other. Five big bets/hour? $40/hour at Omaha/8? No $^%$## way!
You may have Omaha-8 confused with Omaha high. Omaha high has a lot of playable hands before the flop. Omaha-8 has very few. To play O-8 correctly requires very tight play - certainly tighter than Hold 'em or Omaha Hi.
Though I agree that playing very tightly before the flop is almost all you need to do to come out a winner in these easy games, that is not optimum. If you are a very good player who can afford the fluctuations, you should play a bit looser before the flop, but still quite tight on the flop. Examples, play 2399 but be ready to fold when the flop is Q64 or play KQQ7, but be ready to fold if the flop is K87. Position, being suited, getting in cheaply, etc. can always swing things one way or the other of course.
Ok, given those caveats, do you think you would still play a lower percentage of hands than you would in Omaha High and Hold 'em?
I do play some of these hands when I don't think the pot will be raised, but even then it seems like the I'm still folding more than I do in 7 Stud, and close to what I do at Holdem (percentage wise)--per hour I play more hands at HE.
I wish I was a better player, because I will bet that KQQ7 when I make ks and 7s, even if I don't feel good about it. I will focus on this leak and try to throw it away from now on. I'm betting to protect sketchy equity in 1/2 the pot, which seems kind of foolish multiway.
I also can't afford the fluctuations, so maybe I should be throwing these hands away more.
I completely disagree that more starting hands are playable at this form of poker than any other. Fewere starting hands out of the universe of starting hands are actually playable here.
I think it is probably not possible to do as well as three big bets an hour even, but fluctuations in this game should actually be lower than at other games, due to the fact that it is such a simple game and people who play too many hands have so much the worst of it but are very prevalent.
A good player playing tightly can cash in frequently in these games. Players who play too many hands will experience fluctuations, and eventually a losing record.
Certainly this is one way to play....throw away everything that doesn't contain A2. It also is sufficient to grind out the bucks as long as you're playing against doofuses (doofi?). I feel that the optimum way to play is to see a lot of flops with marginal hands, but insist on the flop hitting the hand HARD...avoiding second-best when the bets get bigger. The huge implied odds in most O/8 pots make this sort of policy worthwhile. An example of the preceding would be playing hands with A3 in them....you DON'T play low-flops that don't contain a deuce. Of course, the above should be modified according to the looseness of the game.
Playing in a 3-6 game where i've seen 4 to 5 players call 3 bets on 3rd street more than once.
Low card opens for a full bet, next player makes it 2 bets with 8 up. I have split Qs mixed suits. I look left and it appears that 3 other players are going to call the double bet.
I know that against 5 to 6 players a pair of queens isn't a favorite.
What should I do? Reraise/call/fold?
I actually folded, and waited for a better start remembering I 3 bet a pocket pair of kings and got 4 callers.
You probably have the best hand...you should reraise and make other pay to try and outdraw you
But with 5 players against me - doesn't one of them figure to out draw me??
yea you are a dog to win the pot. but you are getting 5 to 1 for your dough what more could you want. if your hand is live its a go. follow Jim's advise he is good but buy our book.
thanks
Bob P,
My philosophy in this kind of game is to find another one, where just about everyone calls on third street and make a decision to play or not to play on 4th street cheaply. This particular game I would call with a pair of Q's and make my decision on 4th street. My experience in the LL games that I won the most was the call with playable hands and fold on 4th. To call on third and raise on 4th or call. LL games 4th street is more like 3rd street of a higher limit game for me and hopefully nobody at the table new that I was playing that way. Decide what works for you best and read books.
Paul
So, let's discuss those $25 per hour players, that's a great rate for such a low limit game...What gives?
I have no desire to sell my soul...
There are a couple of ol' timers in this home game I play in who always call 5-Card stud, first and last card down, when it's their turn to deal. They also call a huge ante; $1 ante for $1 to $5 betting. Is there anything published on this game anywhere?
I am tossing my first two cards unless I have a pair or 2 overcards to everyone else's upcards. Is this to tight considering that huge ante? I just can't see being aggresive without a pair. Is an Ace, straight or flush draw or overcards worth being aggressive with?
most people will lose big money playing small pairs in 5 stud. a few can make money with them. any game you dont play as well as the others play much tighter than them and you stand a chance. try winning poker systems by zadeh or how to win at stud poker by wickstead or oswald jacoby on poker. much of what is here is bad advice but will give you a foundation at least. if you use your head its more than enough to destry the old timers.
I agree. There only needs to be one fish. Especially one with deep pockets. I think you have to key: only bet when you have WAY the best of it.
Thanks! That makes sense.
It seems that the number one cause is the very nature of the game, and the fact that poor players don't understand that the action in o-8 is an illusion.
One should worry then about the games drying up, but the illusion is hopefully powerful enough to keep them going and to keep the bad players entertained. Even some people thoughtful enough to read this forum and think about the game seem to advocate some really loose play...which can only be good.
These guys have it in their heads to never, or at least almost never, raise with nut lows. They are deathly afraid of getting quartered. But in this case, as I mentioned, the guy on my left should realize that no one else has made a nut low given the lack of raising on the turn with multiple callers. At least that was my reasoning. However, in retrospect, I should have gone ahead and bet out on the river. Who knows, LHO might have spring to life and raised. If I got some additinal cold callers downstream, I could have 3-bet the river and made some additional profit. We'll never know, though.
I liked the play. In a loose game you would get a bet and several callers to raise into. In a tight game all but the nut low would fold if you bet. In the local games I play in they would know I had the nuts if I bet on the river, and they are loose enough they would bet out and I could check raise.
I added my last name now...still George.
Me and the same guy as the previous hand playing heads up stud:
3rd street: him: (??)Kh, me: (Jh2h)2c
I bring it in and he calls. I've found that when he just calls the bring instead of raising he usually (say, more than half the time) has a big hand. He really likes to slowplay big hands and trap his opponent.
4th street: him(??)KhAd, me: (Jh2h)2c9s
He checks, I check. At this point i feel he has either kings or aces, because it's very suspicious that he hasn't bet into my board.
5th street: him:(??)KhAdTd, me:(Jh2h)2c9sJs
He checks, I bet, he raises, I call. I still put him on kings or aces. The straight is a very slight possibility, but i believe he would have raised with (QJ)K on 3rd street and/or (QJ)KA on 4th street.
6th street: him:(??)KhAdTd2s, me:(Jh2h)2c9sJs3d
He bets, I raise, he calls.
7th street: I catch 7h.
He checks, i bet, he calls.
I'm assuming it's still 75/150
Heads up is a whole different animal...everything depends on your read of your opponent.
As far as I can see you played it perfect. You didn't give the result but I suspect you won against a pair of Kings.
Ray Z of course will give us the "real" correct answer when he posts
Thanks again for the stud post...maybe we'll get a 7 card stud site one day!
Good Luck
Jim
Well, I've been reading these forums for a few months now but hadn't posted anything until last week. I've already seen quite a few more posts since i posted these few hands, I wish others would do the same. Maybe that alone would generate more interest in this sub-forum.
Also, I assume he had kings, but he never showed.
I haven't been playing since mid November since I am living in St. Lucia where there is no game but I've been tuning into this forum every day and try to comment on the Stud Problems.
I usually don't like to share strategy information...but I figured if a guy like Ray Z is willing to share...(AND HIS POSTS ARE ALL GEMS) why shouldn't I.
Others who have added to the best posts on Stud stategy in the past are Mason, David ,Earl, Vince Lepore,Paul Feeney,...Mike Souchak used to post but I haven't seen his name for quite a while.
The last problem I posted was quite controversial..Value of the two flush in 7 Stud..it was on RGP as well.
I've got some notes of hands that are good for discussion from my last few playing sessions...I'll look for a couple to post here.
Keep up the good work
Jim Mogal
George,
Keep this guy around as long as you can. You got more than his fingerprints. If he plays like that waiting until 5th street to raise and you now have 2-pair. If you didn't have two pair you could of checked AGAIN. He let you catch up and pass him due to not betting his hand. If he raised on 3rd would you have dropped knowing what you know about this player? Or 4th?? This also amazes me that this would go on at these stakes.
paul
If he had raised on 3rd i probably would not have dropped (and I may have reraised) because he raises every hand on 3rd, and i have to play at least pairs, if not a few other hands. Although, alot of times i let him steal for a few hands and wait for a decent hand to pound him.
If he had called on 3rd and bet out on 4th i probably drop if unimproved, due to the small pot and the decent chance he has me beat.
By the way, what stakes do you usually play? I played exclusively 15-30 stud (and 20-40 holdem) from February 99 until about October. In October I finally sat in the 40-80 stud game and was astounded at how much worse the players were in general. Now i play anywhere from 15-30 to 100-200. They usually get a 40-80 going every night and a 75-150 on the weekends or whenever i can find someone I like to play heads up against. The games above 40-80 rarely are more than 3 or 4 handed, but i prefer shorthanded stud over a full game, as most players tend to play waaaaaay too many hands on 3rd street shorthanded.
George,
Thanks for your answer. I just started playing 5-10 in a casino. Not much different from 1-5 except if you get good players. Next time I go down I'm going to play 10-20. I just went back to my old game I used to play 10 years ago and that's 2-4 bet or get out, no raising head to head. Crazy games Double Sneakers, 7CS with a helper, 5CS with a helper, Bingo, Zig-Zag, Criss Cross, Fifty-three with three blocks of three. Only played once but has potential for a money maker everyone calls stakes go up later on. Two dollar rake out of every hand for drinks and bartender. It's fun so far but it can get ugly so we'll see. Played in 10-20 games but not in casino's. You got me thinking.
Well good luck
Paul
I believe I would have checked the river unless I was sure he was going to call with just one pair.
I had no doubt he'd call, and even more, i had no doubt he would not raise me unless he hit trips or a straight. I feel that if you can't bet 2 small pair on the river you're losing alot of value. I make this bet alot of times even with one of the pairs showing because when you make this bet people put you on either a huge hand or a bluff and tend to call with one overpair.
Typical Mirage 20/40 game...full table I have KsQs/5s and the suit is live as well as the K and Q.
I limp in after the low card for $5 and a very tight player with a Jd raises.
Everyone folds and it comes back to me.
Call, Fold or Raise?
I like your hand here, you have a hand you can get away from easily if you catch bad, while he does not (supposing he has a pair of jacks).
I say call on 3rd and see what you catch. With a 3-flush and 2 overcards you can't be that much of a dog to jacks. I don't know the actual math however.
On 4th if you catch nothing special you have an easy fold. If you catch a Q or K (or maybe even an A) you can checkraise him and take control of the hand. If you catch a 5 and bet out he may fold right there if he is tight. If you catch a spade you can raise/checkraise him (although i try to avoid this play as it tends to give away your hand, especially if you have undercards to his possible pair).
Now that i think about it more, i think i like the reraise on 3rd street more than the call. I had a hand a while back that I remember, I was the bringin with (AdKd)4d, someone raised and a tight player reraised with a low card showing. I 3-bet it with this hand and the original raiser folded. 4th street i caught the 8d and he caught nothing special, so i bet and he called. 5th street i caught another 8, i bet and he showed me pocket kings and folded, muttering something about how i must have had aces or rolled up.
Also, about your comment about not giving away free strategy tips in this forum, that was the main reason i didn't post at first. But, when I play the high limit games I pick my spots carefully, and I'm sure most of the opponents in those games wouldn't think about the benefits or downfalls of a certain strategy if I handed it to them on a piece of paper. It is a select few that actually sit and think about the game, and they're going to learn these things whether or not you or I post about them. Most of the high limit stud regulars are there to gamble, it seems.
Although my first inclination would be to just call, I think you can go ahead and raise. In the lower limit games I usually play I would probably just call, but the ante is higher in 20-40 so the pot is somewhat bigger. Also, you have plenty of cards that can come which would likely make your opponent either fold or make a mistake by calling.
Suppose he does have jacks...
If you catch a 5 and pair your door card, he may very well put you on a starting hand like (5 A)5 and fold for your double size bet.
If you catch a king or queen and he catches a blank, he may very well be making a mistake by calling if you bet.
If you catch a fourth flush card you are pretty much good to go to the river, given your four flush and overcards to his probable pair.
In the event he does not have jacks:
You may have caught him trying to steal and he may fold if you raise. If you know he is real tight and would not raise without at least jacks then this might not apply.
Overall, I like the problem and the post. It is the type of decision that I would normally not think that much about at the time I had to make it (I would usually just call). But by thinking about it ahead of time I might play the same situation differently the next time it comes up. Perhaps I will raise instead of following my initial instinct to just call....
Dave in Cali
l
You have so many outs and the player is so very tight that I think a reraise is in order, as well as follow through bets on fourth and fifth unless he catches something very scary (another Jack being about it).
Unless he raises you back, whereby you discover that he has Jacks beat.
raise
scott
I think you must raise. You want to play heads up for one. 2nd, you want him to fold if you pair your door card, and this will help. You want him to fold if you make an open pair, and he may do this fearing a higher pair in the hole.
You also want him to feel compelled to draw almost dead if you make your flush, and unless you catch 2 rotten cards (or he catches a jack), you will want to stay to the end. Making the pot bigger will make it tough for him to get out when he should, and there are few hands he can make that you would not pursue.
Also, many (unaware)players doubt you have a 3 flush when you are this aggressive on 3rd street. If you just call, he will be VERY likely to think you have a 3 flush.
Call. If there were players left to act I would raise. The reasons I call are: (1) it's a moderate ante game, and you certainly have odds to go at least to fifth given the starting pot, (2) your hand is live and you have two live overcards, and (3) your pair cards are hidden, meaning that you can trap him for a double bet on a later street if you hit one. I would call here with one overcard or a high card showing, but factors (2) and (3) just make the case stronger. If I caught total blanks I would probably drop by fifth. Was the jack the highest card on board? If he raised into an ace, I would be more inclined to give him credit for jacks, especially if diamonds were dead. I don't reraise here, unless he's so weak-tight he could actually make that fold.
It's probably pretty close here between raising and calling, but the fact is that if you raise this tight player as a semi-bluff, more good things can happen than if you don't reraise him.
If you raise him, he might not give you credit for a four flush when it appears, and really go off for some bets when you have him close to dead.
If you raise him, he might fold on fourth or fifth when you still have not improved at all.
If you just call, he might put you on exactly a three flush and fold when you make it on fifth or sixth.
If you raise him and make an open pair, even the pair of fives, he might fold, figuring you for a higher two pair.
The good outweighs the bad, and with all those live cards being out there, I think you might have close to the best hand as it is! Raise!
if he must have jacks just call and outplay him. if he could have worse and been robbing its a must raise and take control.
Thanks to everyone for your responses.
Firstly, I was surprised that no one recommended folding. I don't like playing flush draws head up against a big pair...and I was pretty certain that this player had a pair of Jacks.
There are many situations where, if I have limped in with a threeflush hoping for three or four way action, only to find myself heads up with a big pair raiser that I will just fold it right there.
In this situation, I thought I should continue because of all the positives, live overcards hidden in the hole, and position.
I chose to raise here...but my thinking was defensive. I figured that my opponent would have to consider that I could possibly beat a pair of Jacks and would have to give me a free card on fourth even if I caught bad.
I put him on Jacks and HE KNEW I PUT HIM ON JACKS!
My plan was to check behind him on fourth if I didn't help and give up on fifth if he bet and I still did not improve.
As Ray said...I have to try to outplay him if I play this hand.
The conclusion was not what I expected. I raised to $40. and he showed the pair of Jacks and announced "Your Aces are good" while folding.
It was this result that made me rethink my strategy on such hands and, against this type of tight player, try raising more often.
Jim Mogal
Start raising this guy a little more than usual on 5th.
Tempting to just fold since you are not getting the odds for a flush, but you may not need the flush odds. You can play Q K for value. If you think he has Jacks, your 2 live overcards might be enough to outplay him. If he figures you have put him on jacks and that's what he has, you are in the driver's seat. It would be esaier if you had K or Q showing, but I would play heads-up and play like I had a larger pair.
Can you explain the kill strategy?
I need the definition of "redraw", as it is used in H/L Split Poker (Zee). Thanks.
The context is when you get outdrawn with cards to come, as when somebody makes a straight vs. your trips but you still have a card (or more) to make a full house to beat him, or when you have a 7-low made, someone makes a 6-low, but you have one more card to make a wheel. The term is not exclusive to high-low, and perhaps would be easier to understand (although cumbersome) if it was called "re-outdraw".
ill put you on my payroll to help with any other misleading definitions i throw out. thanks.
WHAT ARE THE ODDS ON STARTING HANDS ON DOWN TO THE LEAST STARTING HANDS
Ok. Now same book, page208. High hands also do well in games where the pot is not raised before the flop, since it is more likely than not that two or more low cards to an eight will come out on the flop. Why?
Because you don't want the 2 low cards (or 3) to flop. Your having a high hand increases the chances of this. Those low cards hurt your hand a lot. Even if you hit a high set (say the flop is K53), they make it likely you will share the pot with a low, and this also means low straight and (backdoor) flushes can draw to beat your set for high as well.
Since most flops will not be to your liking (forcing you to fold most of those times), you want to see it cheaply. If players raise and reraise often preflop, you may be better dropping weaker high hands because you will usually have an unplayable flop. All high hands lose some of their profitability with the larger pre-flop investment (this assumes a multi-player pot).
Ok, I understand that. I had read the sentence to say that "high hands do well in games where the pot is not raised before the flop, since (or because)it is more likely than not that two or more low cards to an eight will come out on the flop".
The jist is this then: A lot of raising before the flop could mean low hands. I have a high hand, but that increases the chance of 2(or 3) low cards coming on the flop, which is something of course that I do not desire. It is better to stay out of pots that are raised pre-flop, when you have a high hand. True?
all one way hands go way down in value when the pot is being raised as that shows your opponents have quality hands.
The point is not that the preflop raises mean more good low hands or that the fact that you have a high hand increases the chance of a low flop. These two effects are very small. The real point is that you will now have to pay more to see a flop that will, more often than not, be unfavorable to your hand. When your hand can only go one way, you'd rather see the flop first before throwing a lot of money in.
-DjTj
LL 7CS $1-3
Rolled up 7s on 3rd, call the bring-in 4 other players in the pot ($5)
4th Street (relevant players) A has XX/8,8 B (me) has 77/7,8 C has XX/Jd,7d
A bets $2, I raise max, C calls. (other players fold) A reraises max. I make A for trips. Even though I have an eight, I don't believe he makes this raise unless he beats me. There is $23 in the pot.
I see no future in this hand; all my cards are dead; I fold. C calls the reraise with a flush draw. A bets to the river and wins with trips.
At the time I had to call the reraise there was $23 in the pot and C calling made it $26. This is slightly better than 7.25-1 to call the reraise. Yet, since all my cards were dead at that point and he still has 9 outs, while I may have 6 at best and have to match two out of the next three, I mucked it. What were the odds of winning at this point? Were my card odds at 4th Street zero? Or any other comments appreciated.
Thanks Richard
Richard:
Excellent laydown, IMHO.
Since hindsight is 20/20, you might second guess not raising on 3rd st. I have had rolled up trips run down so many times I routinely raise them up immediately.
Fred
I think you did the right thing folding since your cards are dead and you put the player on trip 8's. I woild have played the trip 7's fast and raised immediately. Average winning hand is mid trips with that many players in a loose low limit game.
he could have had aces and over estimated his hand or out played you. what did he finally have? i don't recall seeing any aces showing.
thanks for responding.
He had trip 8s.
Richard
Raise the bring in. Especially at the low limits, this does only good things. It gets the small pair sweating, and it puts more money into a pot that you are favored to win. I am consistently called when I raise the bring in, so this slow play suff, I leave to tables where my opponents are capable of tough folds.
You have not represented trip sevens at all. He could easily reraise you with two pair, thinking that he has you beat. Call this, then raise on 5th, if he reraises there then you know you're beat and you've saved yourself the big bet on the river. You've paid 2.5 big bets to see if he has trips, over the $30-40 pot. I think you have the odds.
-james H.
I'm not a limit player but I don't like this fold. If he exposes his trip 8s it's probably marginal but I think you can call for $9 more (unless a raising war breaks out in which case you may be able to fold at that point). Remember that a running pair is not that unlikely - you have 3 extra outs on the 6th card and hopefully 6 extra on the river.
But the whole point is that he _might not_ have had you beat. A big pair in the hole is entirely possible as pointed out above. You can't say it was a good fold in hindsight because he did turn over trip 8s - you have to make the evaluation at the time. The fold was just a bit too fancy for my liking - sometimes, especially in low-limit games, you have to just grit your teeth and call.
Andy.
I agree w/Mr. Ward. In fact i would go further in that since you have an 8 is it unlikely he has the case 8 and you should play the hand as such. Most of the time he won't and it isn't that unlikely youll still boat up.
I think you should play this hand agressively on 4th street unless you can be very certain he has trip 8's AND the pots odd don't merit a call.
I disagree with both of you. Richard probably made a sound read in that instance. If the guy didn't raise on 3rd street he probably doesn't have a big pair in the whole. Plus the guy threw in a reraise which shows a lot of strength in your typical lower limit games. If it were 20-40 or over I'd be more inclined to pop it again depending on the player but at the low limits usually when someone shows strength like that on an early street it's best to wait for a better spot. After all...the pot isn't incredibly large at this point and you have a really dead card in that 8 when you KNOW he has two of them. If the guy's wild or something you should definitely reraise but I think that is not the case here.
A very interesting 3 handed 75-150 stud hand last night with many fine points...
Player A: Tight, aggressive, fairly solid player, been running badly lately and is somewhat frustrated by it. Prides himself on making big (and sometimes wrong) laydowns.
Player B: The reason the game is still going late at night. In the 5 or 6 hours we've played, he's raised about 3 times. Calls down alot.
Player C: me.
3rd street: A: (??)5h, B: (??)3c, me: (As9h)9d.
B brings it in, i see that A is ready to raise so i just call, A raises, B calls, i reraise, A calls, b calls.
4th street: A: (??)5h4c, B:(??)3c8h, me:(As9h)9d7s.
I bet, both call.
5th street: A: (??)5h4c2h, B:(??)3c8hTc, me:(As9h)9d7s4s.
I bet, both call.
Here's where it gets interesting.
6th street: A: (??)5h4c2h3d, B:(??)3c8hTcQh, me:(As9h)9d7s4s9s.
I can't tell for sure whether the 3 made player A a straight, but it seemed unlikely that he caught it in the gut. Anyway, I bet out, A thinks for about 30 seconds and then raises, B thinks for a bit and folds. At this point i'm positive A hit the straight, but i have a great semi-bluffing hand with close to half the deck for outs (any pair or spade). Plus he has to know that I know that he hit the straight, therefore making it that much harder for him to play his hand. With the chance that he could lay his hand down right there, I decide to reraise him. He thought for at least a minute and looked like he wanted to fold, but finally decided on calling.
7th street: I catch an Ace to fill up. I get ready to bet out and he has his hand out ready to call, and actually throws his chips out to call before I can bet. I have a feeling that he thinks I'm bluffing him (which I was on 6th street) and that he'd want to bet if I checked, so I decide to check. He then says, "Well, then i bet." I think for a couple seconds and of course raise him and he calls.
Two main questions...
What do you think of the play on 6th street?
And, what of the ethics of the play on the river (from both me and my opponent)?
This hand put him on serious tilt and made the game that much better, especially since he knew I didn't make my hand until the river by the hand i showed down.
I like the raise on 6th street ,you have 19 outs ,you are evenmoney to improve.I play with someone who often acts as though he is going to bet and if his opponent throws the money in first ,thinking he is calling he raises,in your post it seems that he could have taken his bet back.Therefore I dont think you did anything cheesy,where as this fellow I play with ,his move although legal is kind of cheesy but as the ref says protect yourself at all times.
Yes, he could have taken his bet back, and he was intending on calling my bet, but since I checked, he made the decision to leave it in as a bet, as I figured he would do, since I've seen him do exactly that a few times before. As soon as he put his chips out acting like he was calling, I planned on being able to checkraise him successfully.
No problem with the ethics. Your opponent is giving away a lot of information and you are using it.
I would not have raised on 6th if I was "sure" he had a straight...but its close
He probably makes the straight with one of my outs (an Ace in the hole)
Also I notice that he was not in the mood to make any big laydown.....in fact he could have saved the last $150. after your checkraise if he was playing well
You're probably right about that in this hand, but he's shown bigger hands than this to me more than once that he laid down after I bet aggressively. However, he was on tilt at the time and I probably read him (or his mental state) incorrectly in this particular situation.
But he did come close to mucking it on 6th street. I figured that since I was close to even money to make my hand anyway, if there was any chance he would lay the hand down to my reraise it was worth trying.
1. I really like your play on 6th street.
2. That's poker.
I also have a question of my own for the experts (6th street). If you think the guy with a straight will bet should you check allowing him to bet trying to trap a weak player in between while taking a shot at player "A"? Case 1 -- you are sure he has a straight. Case 2 -- 90% he will bet.
I considered checkraising on 6th street as well, but I chose to bet for a couple reasons. First of all, I have a strong hand and don't really want to give a free card here if he does not have the straight. If I checked to him and he did not have the straight I don't think he'd bet in this situation because I paired my doorcard after reraising on 3rd street. He has to know that I have a big hand and that I'm going to call him down.
Second, as far as the semibluff goes, a bet and reraise is a somewhat stronger play than a checkraise in my opinion. With the checkraise I could just be testing the waters to see if he made the straight, but with the bet and reraise of his raise I'm basically telling him I know he has the straight and I don't care.
"Second, as far as the semibluff goes, a bet and reraise is a somewhat stronger play than a checkraise in my opinion"
This in my opinion depends on a player. And which play will have more effect on him/her. I think a checkraise here is a little more convincing, but that's just me.
Also I think if you check here it would be bad poker(unless you were 100% sure) because you have 2 players in. But I wonder if a check is better if you are only against player "A".
A few more posts like this and John Feeney might even start playing stud.
Keep it up.
George,
A very interesting 3 handed 75-150 stud hand last night with many fine points...
Two main questions...
What do you think of the play on 6th street?
Perfect
And, what of the ethics of the play on the river (from both me and my opponent)?
He wants to play with his chips before you touch yours burn him.
Paul
I don't know stud well, but I enjoyed reading how this hand played out. I think Jim Mogal makes a good point about how he might not have been as eager as usual to make a tough laydown to your semi-bluff reraise, but I do like your thinking, and agree that it was at least close. I'm not sure that it was worth an extra big bet to play 6th the way you did versus check-raising... maybe. Your play on the end was fine. He had a big tell. Anyway, that was real poker.
If I was 100% sure he would bet then I would agree that checkraising is the superior play here. It's cheaper and it gets the same point across to him. I just thought there wasn't much chance he'd bet without the straight since i paired my doorcard after showing strength throughout the hand, and I thought missing a bet here would be by far the most erroneous play.
Without looking below (or above, whatever)
6th street play is correct
ethics....no problem what you did at all. He was tossing his money first out of turn trying to get you to prevent a bluff. The question to ask is, "what would have done if you did not hit the boat?" If you would have folded based on the opponent's tossing his money in, then he definitely got what he desreved, namely an "ouch" bet from you.
Can I assume that the "cut off" seat is the seat one to the right of the button?
On the HE forum, they said you are correct.
Thank you. For some reason, I am unable once in a while to post a new message in that forum. Perhaps it is webtv.
In Omaha Hi-Lo 8 or better, is it ever correct to draw to one side only if you're drawing to the nut? For example, let's say you hold an A-2-3-4 (all different suits) and the flop comes 7-8-J and the betting is heavy. Or say that you have an ace-high flush draw but you know that a low is already made and you have no chance at the low side.
I've heard that you only play draws that have the chance to scoop. But I see a lot of O8 players drawing to one half only. It doesn't seem worth it though.
Flip.
Your A-2-3-4 with a 7-8-J flop is a dream hand. Lots of betting means multiple opponents, so even if you get a quarter, you may come out ahead. Is is possible you have 2 others with A-2 against you, but that's life. You win low if any A-6 comes off in 2 cards, and this half SHOULD be profitable even if you have to pay several bets to get there.
At a full table game, there are usually enough opponents to make hale the pot easily worth playing for. Of course, you usually should not try to eliminate opponents in this case.Though A-2-3-4 should try to build a giant pot a pray for an A or 2 to ruin others' low hands.
In short or very tight games, low only hands don't do as well, but at a full table half the pot should be worth pursuing.
Good luck.
And if the pot is small, even at a full table, your half may not be worth it...it's a matter of cutting the pot size in half (or potentially in quarter) and determining the likelihood of your draw coming in, and it remaining good.
As in many other situations, it's a matter of pot odds. A draw to the high nuts is less subject to "quartering" than a draw to the low nuts; against that, high nut hands on the turn can be rivered into oblivion. They can also see half the pot disappear when the board hits low on the end. So, a high draw hand only MUST be drawing to the nuts to be played at all. There is rarely such a thing as a one-way low draw. Even your example hand has SOME chance to scoop. Against that is the possibility of being quartered or counterfeited. This means than an A-2-3 can be played MUCH more liberally than an A-2 nut draw. The key to profit in such hands is preserving the largest number of players possible to ensure that your hit receives proper payoffs. Do NOT raise with these "come" hands; you do not want to thin out the field. Apropos of the above, I like the pot to be at least four-handed before I indulge in ANY type of drawing hand. This way, I am relatively proof against LOSS by "quartering" (although if it does occur my profit may be small). And if I am going high only, ideally the distribution of hands at the river will be me (nut high), second-high, nut low, second-low.
Yea, you really want four players in when there's a chance of getting quartered. Three and you're going to lose $$.....Red
The game is 7 stud/8 or better. After the low brings it in for $15, Player A completes to $50, Player B raises to $100, Player C re-raises to $150. The low folds, Player A folds and before Player B has a chance to act on Player C's raise, the dealer deals him his fourth card.
Player C says "What are you doing dealer, he hasnt called my raise yet!" Player B, who's door card was a 5, was dealt a Q.
Both players ask for the floorman. The floorman hears what happened and says that the Q becomes a dead card and takes it away and puts it in the muck. He says Player B can still decide if he wants to call, raise or fold, and that the next card off the top of the deck will be his and the hand will just continue from there.
Is this the correct ruling? Does the prematurely dealt card (the Q in this case) get burned?? This happened in a tournament. Would the ruling be different if in a ring game?
Any knowledge would be appreciated.
Gambler
most of the ruling is right except i believe the queen should go back in the deck and be shuffled then the action can commence.
Which are more sensitive to position - high pairs (AAxy, KKxy, QQxy) or high/middle suited straight runs like KcQcTd9d, Ac9s8c7s, and 8h7h6d5d?
Should you just limp with high pairs if a raise would likely narrow the field to 1-2 opponents with position on you?
When *should* you generally raise in early position?
high pairs with nothing else will get you broke quick in pot limit omaha. except when you can get allin with aces headup.
how you play your hand is determined by how deep the money is.
I have been playing holdem for about a year and have decided to learn a new game. I chose Omaha High-Low because its a game that can be found in the cardrooms in my area.
I am a little confused on the rules of the game. I was wondering were to find a good list of the rules, or if someone could give me a brief description of them. My basic problems come from which cards you can use. I understand that only two cards can be played, but to win the high and the low do you have to use the same two cards. Say for example you hold A2KK and the board is K348J I have the nut low but can I win the whole pot with my set of kings for the high. Which cards are playable and the ways to win both the high and the low confuse and some clarification would great.
Thanks
Another question lets say you have A299 and the flop comes 357 the turn is a 2 and the river is some big card. Do you have a low hand? In holdem you use the all seven cards to make you best hand. In this situation are you allwed to not use the 2 that came on the turn to make the low or do you only have a pair of twos?
you can win both but must use two cards out of your hand for the hand you play. kk could be the high and ace deuce could be the low.
2nd case same as the first. take your best two cards and use them with the three you want to on the board. you have 12357 with a board of 2357 which is a bad hand as alot of others now beat you.
So to make a hand you must use two cards from your hand no matter what, unlike holdem?
Yes, always exactly two from your hand and exactly three from the board.
For the full rules and some examples, check the rec.gambling.poker FAQ.
With 4 cards in your hand, you have 6 different combinations of using any two cards. But you must use two cards with any three on board. You cannot use just one card out of your hand like hold em. Also you may use any two cards for high, and any two cards for low, even if you use the same card or cards twice. I too am getting acquainted with the game, but I expect to turn pro in.....say about one week. Comments welcome.
Is using 2 different cards for both the hi and the lo pot always the case i.e. standard or more of a 'standard deviation' to the normal game?
Thanks, Ben.
I am holding 552T in the bb - 6 players see the flop without a raise.
flop is 59J rainbow giving me bottom set. I bet, utg raises, 2 players fold, 1 caller, button re-raises. I fold.
It seemed to me all the cards that would give me a boat would give other people higher boats - which leads me to believe that low pairs are completely useless in Omaha/8. Is this true?
mostly true without something else that makes the nuts.
"It seemed to me all the cards that would give me a boat would give other people higher boats - which leads me to believe that low pairs are completely useless in Omaha/8."
Low pairs have virtually no value in Omaha-8. When you flop a set, (1) that puts a low card on board, making it more likely that you'll have to split the pot if you do win, (2) you usually have bottom set, which may already be behind and drawing near dead, (3) and you are easily outdrawn by straights or flushes, and if you do fill two pair will make a higher full house.
I have not played a lot of Omaha, but I certanly remember a lesson one evening, on getting trips plastered many times.
That's a real tough hand to start with, I think you have to muck that right off the bat.
The only way to play that hand is, as you did, in the BB without a raise. After that the flop had bettr be A34 or 55X or you're out of there! If you catch the third 5, check and fold if there is ANY action.
Bottom set is a very vulnerable hand in Omaha high and Omaha/8, but it's quite a bit worse in Omaha/8 because it puts a low card on the board, and because it is harder to play correctly. If you have a loose game where players will check-and-call with a bad low draw, or top two pair, or top set, or any number of other hands, then you'll have no way of knowing if you are drawing to one out. And that's often the case.
I would usually rather have top two pair in Omaha than bottom set.
Anyway, I think you played the hand fine.
I live in Florida and the only poker available is run by the Indians. They have mini tournaments, since in Fl. the most that can be in a pot is $10.00 !!! These tournaments allow for somewhat better action. Anyway the question is, am I taking the worst of it in the following situation. $105 buy-in with one $30 re-buy. There are nine players and they play 45 hands and the payout is as follows, $450, $225, $125 and $100. What do you think ? Not something to make a living at but is it totally unreasonable?
if you posted correctly they take out $45 plus all the rebuy money and only play about an hour and a half. i wouldnt play here unless the rebuy money all went in to the payoff as well.
Yup that's just what they are doing! $270.00 in rebuys and $45 off the top! How friggin greedy can ya get? It's unbelievable to me that I can't play in a cardroom in South Florida. I was looking for someway to justify it, since there are no other options. Thanks Ray
"since there are no other options"
What about the gambling boats in Miami?
An ex-dealer who gives his internet name as Bob Bauer recently posted a response on rgp to my question about South Florida games that explains why this is a bad deal. Ray, as usual, is right. The rebuy goes to the house. Capaletti (spelling???) actually wrote an article about these games in CardPlayer in November or December in which he praises these games. Although the rake is still high (but not as draconian), most people recommended the SeaEscape night cruises. From reading Roy Cooke's book, it appears that there are a lot of home games in the area. I travel to the area from time to time. I will probably go to the SeaEscape next week and if I am not tired try one tournament just for entertainment value on the way to my hotel. I will try to remember to post my impression of the play. In any event, at least you have options in South Florida, unlike the poker wasteland of Atlanta.
Are you saying that someone praised the games that I described or the Sea Escape ? I'm most curious as to the rational. If someone could put this game in some kind of reasonable perspective, I'd play it from time to time. I know I'm kinda pushing it but I am knew to the area and need a game !
In the November 12, 1999 issue of CardPlayer, Cappelletti stated that the highly skilled player could show a long run profit of about $20 per hour in the game you described by winning about twenty to thirty percent of the time and finishing in the top four most of the time. For just a fairly good Omaha player, he suggests that they could win a little or just pay for the entertainment. In the Tampa Seminole games I noted that the highly skilled 7CS players seemed to have this level of profit. But most of the 7CS players during the evening hours were horrible. Cappelletti seemed to suggest that the Omaha H/L players in Hollywood were also terrible. The players on RGP all praised the SeaEscape and some praised the home games.
In a thread below, there is a discussion about hourly rate in Omaha/8. This prompted me to ask following questions:
1) What is the opinion of the forum as to the Minimum Number of Hours a person would have to play, for the calculation of that person's hourly rate to be "statistically significant"?
2) Also, given that Omaha/8 has a low standard deviation, how much higher would the Minimum Number of Hours have to be for Limit Holdem or Limit Omaha High?
For your hourly rate to be reasonably accurate you need a lot of hours. Perhaps at least a thousand.
But, there is also another way that you can estimate it. If you are a highly experienced player you should be able to do a reasonably good guess as to what your rate should be after just a short time in the game. Of course, to be able to do this you need to understand the game that you are playing well, and you need to be able to accurately judge your opponents after only a short period of time. Some players can do this.
Let me give a couple of examples. Suppose you are an expert hold 'em player. You sit down in a game and there are several players playing almost every hand and frequently going to the river. Your win rate should approach two big bets an hour.
On the other hand, suppose the game is fairly tight, and it features several players who play well on the first two cards, the flop, and the later streets. You won't do much better than half a big bet per hour. Note that if you are just an okay player you should be a small loser in this game.
You imply that in a tight game where the majority of players are playing well, your earnings rate will be minimal. This leads me to ask one question which has bugged me for a while: how come you walk into a casino and frequently find ten rocks clustered around the biggest game in the room? They all know each other; they all know they can't beat each other significantly; so what are they DOING there?? I suppose they might be waiting, like a school of piranha, for something big and juicy to swim by, but in the meantime they must be boring themselves to death. Or does each of them think he's the toughest, smartest, biggest cojones expert at the table and thus has a significant edge over all the other "experts"?
I have noticed the same, and I have asked that question. I think the answer is ego. Just like any professional "sport" (except of course wrestling), ego is first and money is next.
Suppose in a 100-200 game (wow), winning a small bet/hour can be big money. So I guess they really don't need significantly better than others to make money.
regards,
jikun
Can I make the reverse implication i.e. if I am usually playing in a loose game (as you described) and I have a winning rate of two big bets per hour over 1,000 hours, does that mean I'm an expert player? :^)
In all honesty, my O/8 rate per hr. is about 1.5 big bets whereas my Holdem rate per hr. is about 0.8 big bets. The significance problem is that I only play about 500 hrs. per year over 2.5 years (equal amounts of HE and O/8). So I was really asking whether I could support my belief that I am a significantly better O/8 player by comparing rates per hour. If I understand your post, the answer is "not enough hours to be statistically significant".
Repost of question 2: If O/8 is 1,000 hrs, then is HE 1,200 hrs and Omaha High 1,500 hrs?
I have two years experience in Omaha/8 and just started using Turbo Omaha/8 software. I would like to know what any of you more experienced players think of the Easy Point Count method for evaluating starting hands.
Compared to the computer program I have been playing too tight yet have been fairly successful, averaging about $10-15 per hour) over the past year in a loose-passive to loose-aggressive 4-8 half kill game.
P.S. The program, made for Windows, works great in a Mac loaded with Virtual PC Software.
I have a Mac and Virtual PC. What kind of MAc do you run VPC on? I could not get it loaded.
Ratso, I have a 350 MH Mac G3. I was able to install Virtual PC easily. After opening VPC (that has Windows 98 in it) Turbo Omaha on CD could be installed and operated very smoothly.
That's a speedy machine. I have a humble 7600 with VPC '95. They recommend a 200Mhz machine or fatsre. Thanks. looks like I'll have to get ot and run on a shared wintel machine.
thanks
In my opinion the point count system is worthless. Perhaps someone will disagree but I just use my brain and perhaps ray's book to decide how to play pre-flop.
Dave in Cali
You may well be right but I find it useful when I get to the stage in a game when everything starts looking good to me.
I haven't noticed any discussion on this in Ray Zee's book, and have been thinking about this myself for some time. When is it correct to raise when you are the bring-in in Stud/8? -Ken
I like raising the bringin in the same situations that you would raise in high stud. I don't think it is correct to raise the low draw unless you have a monster low draw. The low draws will obviously call your raise, so the only people you can force out by raising are other high hands. In that case you play your rises like any 7CS high hand.
usually never do you want to raise yourself as the bring in. bring it in for the minimum. then you can reraise if you want when the action if raised gets back to you. i guess if you are in a game where no one ever raises and you have a good hand you might as well bring it in for a raise yourself but you do give away alot of info.
Ok, you say "usually" you don't want to. What would be some examples/situations where this might be employed.
Also, the low-limit game I play doesn't usually have a raise preflop, so would it be advantageous to raise more often in this situation? or wait for 4th street and hope to catch good and toss in a bet/raise there?
I WAS WATCHNG THE GAME BETWEEN DRUGABUSER ANG CRAZY PANTS MCGEE ON TUESDAY... MAN, IS MCGEE A CRY BABY (Read About the match in Texas Hold'em section) HE JUST CAN'T LOSE
I know... Crazy pants mcGee is such a cry baby someone should teach him a lesson
I am playing 20/40...its short handed and an agressive player who is normally a high stakes player (75/150) raises with a 7d showing. I am next to act and I have J6/J6 and only the bring in is left to act behind me.
I reraise here and and called by the 7d.
On fourth street opponent has xx/7dAd , I have J6/J9, he checks, I bet, he calls.
On fifth he shows xx/7dAd5c I have J6/J98 ..He CHECKRAISES me
What should I do?
since he is a high stakes player he may check raise here with 4 diamonds or 4 and a pair. that answers your question. maybe you should have checked on 4th street and it would be easier to play with him leading on five.
Ray,
Although I hate the Ace he catches on 4th I don't want to "dog" the hand after he checks. Would you routinely check with this holding on fourth street after your agressive opponent catches a suited Ace but checks into you? Maybe he has 7Q or 7K in the hole and still can't beat a pair of Jacks.
Moreover I tend to rule out a fourflush here since most players will lead out on fourth with an Ace high four flush.
If I DON'T put him on a four flush, then the check raise on five is bad for me. it means he has Aces or Aces up and I must fold.
I just don't think he will check raise here with a four flush and a pair when he is high on the board and has to act first on fifth street....since the play cannot give him a free card if he catches bad.
Am I giving up too much to fold here on fifth street after the check raise?
Thanks for your response
Jim Mogal
no 4 flush on five and you dont think he would checkraise with a pair and 2 overcards then a fold is in order or with the pot getting big take one off to see if you improve as he may have qq or kk and then you should be sticking around. its all in your read of what he may have. you would be sick if he showed two small pair, sevens and fives. thats the problem when you have a weak big pair and you push the pot early it puts you in a spot to make a mistake that can cost alot of bets.
on 4th stree your hand is not much of a favorite against a pair and two overcards and plays badly against his board. it would swing me to check here and force him to lead on 5th street.
Jim:
I have ZERO experience at 20-40, but let me take a shot at this. You can eliminate a flush draw, since he would have bet on 4th when the Ad hit. I think his most likely starting hands would be A7/7 or unlikely 77/7. With AA/7 he would reraise on 3rd. So what to do with JJ vs AA77? There are two 7's and four 10's that would make you open ended. Probably worth a call. I think it would have been better to take the free card on 5th with a hand that isn't there yet, but has possibilites.
Fred M
He could have also started with 7K/7 or 7Q/7 which is more likely when he checks on 4th street after catching the suited Ace.
Jim:
We have agreed the probability of a fourflush is diminished. The scenario is perfect for a slowplay on 4th and checkraise on 5th (at the $40 level) if he holds AA77. Would he checkraise with a pair of 7's and two overcards? (K7/7AX)
Fred M.
No, I don't think he can checkraise here on fifth without at least Aces, more likely, Aces up.
I figure he was slowplaying on 4th with A7/7A
I really dislike that Ad he caught on 4th. Maybe you should have checked 4th. He would probably come out betting now on 5th(regardless) and you can just call him down. However I think this play would have been better if you caught something really ugly. Since you caught a 9 it sort of pushes you to bet. Now you catch an 8 and show xxj98 and get checkraised. Wow, trouble in paradise and a very tough spot he has put you in. I'm not sure what to do here. I think you must know the player well. Since you said he is from a bigger game I think you must call him down. He probably is semibluffing with one small pair or he has one big Ace. In either case you must call him down. If somehow he made two pair or trips then you just ran out of luck this hand.
I'm always suspicious of anyone who raises on 3rd street, then catches an ace suited with their doorcard and checks, even when someone did reraise them on 3rd street. I find that more often than not opponents (especially around the 75-150 level) tend to checkraise either on 4th or 5th street if the suited ace helped them (i.e., made them aces or aces up), and bet out to try to represent the aces if it didn't help.
Personally, I would be happy to check behind him on 5th street and take it from there. He'll most likely bet out on 6th regardless of what he catches, and you have a hand worthy of calling him down.
George,
I don't think my hand is "worthy" after the fifth street check raise....It's just a pair of jacks!
If you read my response to Ray above you see my reason for betting out after he checks on 4th and 5th
Would you check behind him on fourth street?
Regards
Jim Mogal
I would bet 4th street and check behind on 5th street more likely. At this point you are either barely ahead or far behind. He will surely bet 6th street and here you can call probably justify calling him down.
After the checkraise he surely has you beat, the question is just how badly. If you think he has just aces you aren't in bad shape, but if he has trips or aces up (the more likely hand in my opinion) you're in deep trouble.
I would lean towards mucking here, unless this player has EVER seen you make a similar laydown for a checkraise here...then i would call him down.
30-60 stud
3rd. 4 players in for the bring-in (low included)
4th. I make kings up and bet. 2 calls (low folded)
5th. The guy with xx96A showing who was the second player in originaly and limped checks, next one checks I bet. The guy with xx96A raises the other one folds and I reraise.
6th. we both catch blanks. He checks. I bet and get raised. I think for a while and muck.
Player in question: Played with him 2 or 3 times previously. I remembered that he played bad. He just sat down and took about 3 hands.
Additional info: My hand is pretty much dead as I only have 2 cards to improve.
Comments?
I think the check raise on fifth indicates a strong hand..at least Aces..maybe Aces up.
I don't like your reraise on fifth...I would have called here with Kings up and decide on 6th street what to do..I assume he was high on board..or was one of your pairs exposed.
Jim Mogal
Rather than reraise on 5th you could have called and then called another bet on 6th for the same price. I feel this is a better play than reraising 5th as he probably knows you have kings up and can beat them.
Turns out you could have taken a free card on 6th which would probably be better than betting out again. After the second check-raise you are almost certainly beat by even the worst player so you have to fold for sure.
Perhaps a even better play would have been to fold on 5th for the check-raise (if you thought he had aces up), as you have only two outs to beat him. The pot was not raised on third so it is still fairly small and not worth chasing a 2 outer for 3 more big bets.
He could have been playing a small pair with an ace overcard, especially since it was not raised on 3rd. This makes his having aces up very believable. Given this distinct possibility I think you should have saved some $$ on the hand.
I have brain-stormed several possibilities here so perhaps some super-genious (self-proclaimed or otherwise) can decide what the "correct" play should have been.
Dave in Cali
I have noticed after playing 150-200 hrs of 1-3, 1-5, and 5-10 stud, that I almost never show down straights! I have read in wests stud book that there are a lot of "great players" who never play for straights, and that their straight draws must have some other values besides the straight, such as Over pairs or flush draws. On 3rd street, hands I will play for straights are limited to JQK, TJQ, 9TJ, and 89T if it is 2 suited. These hands all have two way possibilities (i am not counting 3 card straight flushes). I virtually never play straights with a hole, even when the hole is completely live (89J). or low straights like 456, 567 even when all 16 important cards are live.
So my question is, am I playing too tightly in this area? Against a very weak, passive table, I will dramatically reduce my starting requirements to any pair, pocket face card twoflushes, etc. I then fold if 4th street is not the perfect card. ShoulD I also loosen up and play more low straight draws, staying only when I am 4 to a straight on 4th? Should I add some of the medium straights with one gap (assuming all gap cards are live?).
I think I may be over doing the adage- " a small flush can become an A high flush but a small straight is always a small straight"
Thanks
Todd
Todd:
I agree with you on paragraph one.
Against a weak passive table, it is a mistake to "dramatically reduce" your starting hand requirements. You are lowering yourself to their level of play. Maintain your starting requirements and outplay the opposition when you are in the pot. You're still a rookie at 200 hours. As you get more experience you will see spot situations when you can loosen up. Good Luck.
Fred M.
Todd,
If you can get in for the MINIMUM, than you can play any three straight if it is going to be a multiway pot. Ideally 3 or 4 handed.
You can also play one gap straights like 89J or higher as long as the gap card is totally live.
There is tremendous value in limping in weak passive games but you must be sure that you are getting in for the minimum.
Don't call any raise with these hand and don't even limp in if it looks like someone is going to raise.
On fourth street if you don't improve...get out, and sometimes you also have to fold a pair here, depending on what you think your opponents have.
Good Luck
Jim Mogal
I have always subscribed to your thinking since I think we read the same books. Lately in 10-20 and 5-10 games I have been looking at 1 card if I can get in for 1 bring-in bet in late position and if my cards are live, even with lower draws (8, 9, T) and if there are 3 people in the pot. That seems to be working. Spend a minute and look at pot odds and implied odds, and I think you will find a profit. Big pairs are played very strongly in the 5-10, 10-20 games. The key is when you make a straight early and raise the pot to make the 2 pair draws pay. Early raise will dump most of the flush draws especially if 2 or 3 suited cards are out. I still prefer to toss straights without big cards, but my father-in-law (an accomplished card player) has changed my thinking just a bit.
small 3 straights against passive callers are fine hands when live enough. it seems like you are reducing your requirements in the wrong spots. against many players you want hands that can grow to big hands and two big card hands and small pairs should do much worse than live 3 straights. hands like 89j can turn into full houses as well. when live these type of hands have lots more cards to improve with than small pairs.
When I began playing crazy pinapple (CP/8), I expected my standard deviation (SD) to fall somewhere between my Holdem SD and my substantally lower Omaha/8 SD. WRONG! My variance in this crazy game has been sky high (even though I have played fewer hands in CP/8 than the other games). However, my CP/8 sample size is limited and the pinapple games have generally been looser/wilder (especially before the flop) than the HE and Omaha/8 games in which I play. Of course, the wildness of the CP/8 players makes these games a crapshoot; however, I wonder whether wild players are attracted to CP/8 because it is a relative crapshoot. In other words, how should the SD of CP/8 compare to HE and Omaha/8 games of similar disposition (i.e., similar number of players and bets per hand)?
It depends on the stakes, the quality of opponents, and the ability to isolate, or at least get some people to fold. At low stakes, I'd guess it's higher s.d. than comparable Omaha/8. At high stakes the variance on O/8 and Pineapple are probably comparable.
JG
KcJc2h3c UTG in a kill pot, extremely loose and passive game, with guaranteed five way action in small pots--usually 6-7 way--and without any preflop raises (except from me, occasionally).
I call, as do five other players and the big blind.
Flop comes AcQc8s, pretty close to my ideal flop. BB checks, i bet, five callers including the blind.
Turn is a blank--a red nine maybe? Don't remember, but I bet out anyway, four callers including the blind.
River is 4c, blind bets, I raise.
Should I have called, hoping to get a few more callers to my nut nut?
no you will get most of them anyway if they have something. and maybe get to jam it with 3/4 of the pot.
If you can get those kind of flops and river cards with a quasi-trash hand like KcJc2h3c then fine. I find his type of hand is usually destined to get NON NUT draws at both ends and results in an inversely proportional level of my chip pile and my blood pressure.
Needless to say, I liked the flop. Really, what was good about the hand was that I could get in cheaply, and get away from it if the flop was missing any ace...plus, I could not give much action if the flop was missing the ace of clubs.
I excercise great caution with such hands, but I didn't want to throw it away in such an ideal game.
Can anyone tell me where to find a reasonable treatment of Omaha (High only)?
Also, I am looking for a second Omaha High/Low book (I already have Ray Zee's High-Low-Split Poker).
Sue,
Scroll down 58% of the way in this section OPG's under Ray Zee's Book for more choices.
Good Luck Paul
i would read zee's book a second time first. iwould also get the books written by Bob Ciaffone as he is my next choice especially for high only. reading David and Mason's other works will help you play all games and will improve your play more than any other books around even if they are not specific to your game. then go out and read the others as well. good luck.
I play this a lot in home games. When the game is very loose-passive, I would play high trips (but only then). The advantage is that you can trap bad players with high pairs, or have the best of it against multiple low draws. The chance of your trips losing to an unconnected low hand is very small. Low 3-flushes are very rare, and the aces at least don't have low 3-straights. I would definitely call rather than 3-bet on third since you don't want to lose the ace trapped in the middle (or worse, lose him and the 3d). On fifth, the pot is already $120 in antes + $600 from third + $300 from fourth = $1020. It will cost $450 to call him down, and you'll win $960 if you get half. You fill or quad 30% of the time, so you only need him to not make a straight or flush about 20% of the time. There is enough uncertainty about his holecards for this to be reasonable. I would call here.
I must be missing something. Your opponent made quad aces and you're asking if you should have been more aggressive? Do you think you could make him lay down top set before the river? ONce again...am I missing something?
I don't believe I would have played that hand with two raises before the flop and six players in; but on the flop I might have raised since there was not only a set of kings, but also the nut low draw. As it turned out when the high card hit the river you were dead, but if a 4-7 hits, you may have had low by yourself.
I don't play Omaha-8 but I think you almost must raise the flop. You have a set of kings with a nut low draw and a chance to raise all those players in between. On the turn I think you have a bet when checked to you even though the button raised the flop. If I'm way off about the play on the turn I'd like to hear it from someone.
Berya - You indicated you’d like to hear from someone if you were way off about the play on the turn. Since none of the Omaha Gurus have answered you, I’ll stick in my two cents worth to give you some feed back.
I think you’re way off on the turn. Sorry.
1. Before the flop
KK23 is not a good starting hand in Omaha-8.
You need to play exactly two cards from your individual hand and three cards from the board. With four cards dealt to you there are six two-card combinations possible. However, KK23 has only two decent two-card combinations, KK and 23, limiting the number of flops that will fit with your hand.
The high pair, kings, is a good two-card combination. The 23 low two-card combination is third rate and is unsupported. Low two-card combinations need to be supported by other low two-card combinations, because of the risk of being counterfeited. Thus the hand described has one good two-card combination and one third rate two-card combination out of a possible six two-card combinations. It’s not a very good hand.
Having said that, I might play KK23 on occasion, under certain circumstances and against certain opponents. One off the button seems a reasonable place to raise with this hand, in an attempt to gain the button and knock out the blinds. (Except that I would probably fold in this case since there was a raise in front of me).
2. After the flop
It’s a good flop, but not a great flop. At this point if John gets two different cards ranking 4,5,6,7,8 he’ll have the nuts low. However, that’s unlikely. There are twenty good cards to make low for him and twenty five bad cards for him (for low). His chance of hitting the winning low is 160/990 = 0.16. It’s about five to one that he won’t make a low. If he does make low it will get a share of the pot.
Trip kings look all right, but with this many players, not great.
Just considering the low aspect, John played it well after the flop because everyone stayed in and also called another bet on the turn. John had the nuts draw for low. If he hit (and was not duplicated) he might have won extra bets by just calling here.
On the other hand, five times out of six John will not have a low after the next two cards. There is no guarantee that the player on the button will bet here. If the player on the button does not bet, then John allows free draws for all his opponents. Someone with an ace-ten or an ace-nine (which would have beaten John on the river) might fold to a double bet here, (if John bets and the player on the button raises). Or someone might fold to a single bet here, if the player on the button does not raise. Also someone with a straight or back door flush draw might fold to a double bet here. As it turned out in this particular hand, straights and flushes were not important, but in general they should be considered in making a decision to try to limit the field by betting.
In my opinion, since John is more likely to win for high than for low and since unimproved trip kings do better against fewer players, John probably should try to limit the field here by raising.
3. After the turn
Once a higher pair hits the board the set of kings goes way down in value with this many players. John has a full house, but it will be beaten by someone with an ace and another card matching one on the board.
An important difference between Omaha and Texas hold ‘em is that, depending on the number of players, someone is about ten times as likely to have an ace in Omaha. With this many players in a raised pot, at least one of John’s opponents surely has an ace. If that person also has a king John is already beaten. If that person doesn’t have a king, John might luck out for high with his second rate full house.
Another important difference between Omaha and Texas hold ‘em is that full houses are much more common in Omaha. When there is a pair on the board, thus enabling a full house, it is likely, with this many players in the pot, that more that one player has a full house. My rule of thumb for this situation is that if my pair (making a full house) is higher than the pair on the board, the hand is (generally) worth a bet. Otherwise it’s (generally) only worth a call.
I think John definitely should play it with his tail between his legs here. He is right to be frightened of the ace.
4. On the river
When nobody bets into John, he begins to hope that perhaps he has a winner after all. However the button is yet to come and, additionally, someone with an AK might check here hoping for a check-raise. Thus John wisely plays it cautiously.
The player on the button bets. I think John has to reluctantly call.
As it turns out, the player on the button has two aces and John's cautious play is rewarded by costing him only two big bets instead of three.
I think John played it well on the turn and the river. I would have (in general) folded before the flop and I would have raised (perhaps foolishly) after the flop.
Buzz
"An important difference between Omaha and Texas hold ‘em is that, depending on the number of players, someone is about ten times as likely to have an ace in Omaha. With this many players in a raised pot, at least one of John’s opponents surely has an ace. If that person also has a king John is already beaten. If that person doesn’t have a king, John might luck out for high with his second rate full house. "
Other possible hands for the button where he might have played it the way he did are A238 and A248. Button ends up with Aces full of 8s.
D.Hanson stated that you probably analyzed the hand with only one low card on the flop. How much does two low cards on the flop affect your analysis?
AX - Thanks for your post.
The last couple of days have not been great for me. Got a speeding ticket (60 in a 45 zone) on PCH on the way home from the airport (the red eye from Maui) Wednesday at 5:30 a.m. Hardly another car on the road. Just that one Santa Monica radar cop.
Then I made the error in analyzing the hand under discussion here. To top it off I lost today playing Omaha.
Think I’ll stay home and sulk for a while.
I don’t think I used to make many mistakes. Now, when I make a mistake I wonder how I could have done that, what I was thinking. In this case: Oops, there are TWO low cards on the flop and of course that changes my after the flop analysis.
2. After the flop
It’s a very good flop for John. At this point if John gets any card ranking 4,5,6, or 7, plus neither a 2 nor a 3, he’ll have the nuts low.
16*15/(1*2) = 120 combos (more than one 4,5,6, or 7)
16*23 = 368 combos (one 4,5,6, or 7, plus an A,K,Q,J,T,9, or 8)
Total 488 winning (or tying) low combos
488/990 = 0.493
Even if a 2 or 3 comes, along with a 4,5,6 or 7, John may still have the winning low hand (that adds value, but less than 96/990). Some of the time John will get quartered for low (reduce by a factor of about 0.15). Considering it all, after the flop John’s equity in the pot due to his 2,3 is a little fuzzy, but maybe worth about a quarter of the pot. (I'm trying to consider his profit over the long haul if he raises here).
Trip kings still look all right, but with this many players, still not great.
It isn’t immediately clear to me if a raise or a call is better.
Help!
O.K. I’m still thinking a raise is better after the flop, but not for exactly the same reasons as in my first post. Now I’m thinking that John should raise after the flop to try to get more money in the pot because of the low-hand equity, and that John should also raise after the flop because he might want to get some players to fold since trip kings play better against a smaller field. Either way, raising still seems better after the flop.
I’m interested in someone else’s thought processes here.
Sorry I screwed up in the original post (to answer Berya).
I still think John would be better off, in general, to fold KK23 before the flop. Given the described situation I still think John's limps after the turn and on the river were correct (favorable odds).
Buzz
Sorry to hear about the ticket. I know things like that totally spoil my day. I agree w/ your analysis completely. KK23 is call vs. no raise; fold to a raise by solid player. Beautiful flop - nut low draw + second set. Would raise on flop especially since button is "maniac" (might raise on any A2xx). If button is solid player, have to acknowledge that trip Aces is a possibility when reraised; but from maniac, who knows? Limp on turn and river [ hate the river call, but the pot is SO big :( ]
Regards.
The point count method that I use indicates that in this situation (several raises), KK23 (23 points) is not strong enough to call in the first place, thus saving you all that trouble.
Maurice - Hutchison's point count system rates the hand at 23 points (if I am adding correctly), with 20 points suggested for a calling hand. Thus he would recommend calling with the hand, although perhaps not under these (raised) circumstances.
Cappelletti's point count system rates the hand at 16 points (again if I am adding correctly) with 12 needed to call an unraised pot and "perhaps a bit more" in a raised pot. 16 is certainly "a bit more" than 12, so that, presumably, Cappelletti would recommend calling with the hand.
Neither Zee (in High-Low-Split Poker) nor Cloutier (in Championship Omaha) nor Ciaffone (in Omaha Holdem Poker) suggest using a point count system.
Zee suggests you can play JJ42 "provided the conditions are right" (whatever that means). Perhaps he means in late position in an unraised pot or against certain (unknown to the reader) opponents. KK32 is better than JJ42, so it sould seem that KK32 is playable "provided the conditions are right," again whatever that means. However, I notice Ray is staying out of this discussion. Ray, if you're reading, I'm not being critical here. I love your book. Sometimes it's hard to be specific.
Cloutier gives a slightly better hand, KK32 double suited, as a practice hand and suggests that "you probably have to take a flop with this hand....but this is a trap hand." He goes on to indicate he doesn't want to call any raises with the hand. He concludes, "Actually, there are so many traps in this hand that I recommend you don't play it at all."
Ciaffone doesn't go near this hand in the high low section although he suggests folding KK65 if the flop comes down 874 with two clubs. One is left to wonder if he implies that KK65 would be a hand with which to see the flop. If so, he must think KK32 is a callable hand.
So I don't know, Maurice. Maybe we're playing too tight. I'm happy to hear that your system agrees with my suggestion that KK32 is not a good hand to play, especially in a raised pot.
I tried to work out a point count system for myself, but that was before I even knew of simulators. I got the two-card low combinations related (for example, I had A2:A3 at 9:4) and managed to tie in flushes, but couldn't figure out how to give high cards points. Now I just look at a hand to decide if it's playable.
I presume you used a simulator in creating your point system. I'd be interested in your system if you're willing to share.
Buzz
In most of the games that I play, I believe there is approximate equality in terms of the "lousiness" of the competition. :)
You may well be a better HE player than O/8, but your O/8 tournament results would certainly make a neutral observer believe otherwise. I guess when we talk about "better", part of the discussion must venture into the "relative to what" category. Are you implying that the "average casino HE player" understands more about his game than the "average casino O/8 player" does about his?
I remember reading in a poker book about the relative difficulty of the various forms of poker. The general gist of it was that lowball was the most "rule-based" and (I think) 7-stud was at the other end. I can't remember what the ordering was, nor can I remember the book from which it came.
CJ,
I'm not sure but I think it's in Sklansky On Poker. My copy is at work, but I'll check tomorrow, unless David's around.
Paul
oh i didnt know David was in your neck of the woods.
JM is going to be after you for your post you better watch your back. Oh that's right you DO RUN THE FORUM.
sO sORRy mAstER
I think it's in Sklansky On Poker. His conclusion, if I recall, was that 7CS hi-lo with a qualifier was the most skill-intensive.
x
.
Limit stud H/L is the most technical game, while no-limit lowball is the most psychological.
CJ,
page 28-31 Which Games Needs the Most Skills???
Sklansky on Poker
paul
ps: I really like this book.
You can find it in Poker, Gaming, & Life on page 25 in the section For the Studious Player.
From best to worst for the player who studies a lot 1. Lowball draw 2. 7stud h/l no qualifier 3. 7stud razz 4. Pot limit Omaja 5. Jacks or better draw 6. California draw 7. 7stud h/l 8 or better 8. Limit hold 'em 9. 7stud 10. no-limit hold 'em
I've never played omaha hi-lo before, just holdem and never low ball(just watched). I was thinking of playing $1-2 for starting out, and I was wondering if you could give me an idea of the types of hands that are cosidered really good starting hands. Also, is the low part of the game Ace to five, or duece to seven?
Thanks a Heap, Danny
I wouldn't even THINK of Playing Omaha Hi-Lo unless I had played a LOT of other hi-lo games, or at least low draw or stud or SOMETHING. It's pretty hard to even read your own hand at first in hi-lo Omaha. Even at $1-2 you will get torn up if you're a beginner at the game. I suggest that you get a good book on the game before even attempting to play---but really, my only recommendation is---don't play at all until your understanding of hi-lo split games is more advanced. Those games---and Omaha hi-lo in particular--have a MUCH diffferent dynamic than the ones you're used to. BTW I don't know if anyone's done a hand ranking chart but I can tell you consensus seems to believe that A2 suited+ A3 suited is the best starting hand. Also, I believe that NO high-only starting hand (like KQJ10) would belong in the top ten---or top thirty. Ace two three four five is the lowest possible hand in all casino poker except the rare occasion when a tournament might spread deuce-to-seven.
I should play low-draw first? I'd love to play Low-draw, but it's dead in the Los Angeles area. I have played seven card stud(high) and 5-card-draw(high) quite a bit, up until holdem took off here in Southern Cal. I only mentioned that I've played hold'em just to let someone, whose trying to help me out, know that I'm familiar with the community card aspect.
I will take your advice to find a book that teaches the basics. Thanks
Look for hands that can make the absolute best hand for high or low, hands that have the potential to win the whole pot instead of just half, and hands that have all four cards connected. Once you learn the mechanics, Omaha hi-lo is a much easier game to play well than holdem.
I know veteran Omaha players may detest a point count system, but Dr. Ed Hutchison developed one for Omaha HiLo that I think can be beneficial to a beginning player. He has been kind enough to post it at this site:
http://www.homestead.com/ehutchison/OmahaSystem~ns4.html
I used this system when I first started playing and it moved my game ahead by at least 2-3 light years. I no longer can look at any any hand and tell you how many points there are in it, but I still use it in the back of my head as a basis for my play.
Be aware that the system is for use in determing whether or not a hand is good to play for low.
Remember that OmahaHiLo is a cruel game where you can flop the nuts and still not have the best hand. People will draw out, suck out and smoke you out all the time. Profitable OmahaHiLo is also very boring. Sometimes you just have to wait and wait and wait and then wait some more for a hand or two that could be profitable. And then when you get those hands they can be like hanging onto Jeff Gordon's spoiler going 200mph at Daytona. This is the addicting part of the game that makes up for all the boring hands that you passed up on.
Good luck and may the flop be with you.
I'll tell you one hand never to play, 6-7-8-9
Another one is 2-2-2-2
No one would consider playing bridge without a point count system and I think that the same holds for Omaha/8. There is more to evaluating starting hands than whether to play them or not. Other questions are: With what hand should I raise? Do I play this hand in my current position? Should I call a raise? With what hands and in what position do I re-raise? Should I complete the Small Blind? Should I answer a raise in the Big Blind? And other questions. Without a point count system you are flying by the seat of your pants.
I find the point count methods described in the computer software Turbo Omaha for Windows, particularly the simple ones like Method E, to be of great value in answering the questions above while the method at http://www.homestead.com/ehutchison/OmahaSystem~ns4.html to be too complicated for use under playing conditions and concerned mostly with low hands.
Since using Turbo's point count method I have no problem mucking garbage hands that the imigination can turn into beauties, like 8s8cTsJh. This hand has 18 points, far below the 25 required for a simple call in late position but sufficient to complete the small blind.
Out of the 8281 starting 4 card combinations these are the best 10 (actually 11 since there is a tie for 10th place): AA23 double suited(ds) AA24 ds AA23 A suited A234 ds AA25 ds AA22 ds AA34 ds AK23 ds AA35 ds AA24 A suited AA2T ds A234 A suited
Hope this helps.
Greg
Doc Hutchison's point count system may seem a little complecated, but it can reduced to a 2x3 in sheet of paper. I made a little cheater sheet when I first started using the system and kept it close by in my lap or even on the table.
It is not that difficult to learn especially if you have the cheater sheet in front of you. I memorized on a 3 hour drive to Tunica and rarely referred to it afterwards.
If you would like an Excel file with the cheater sheet for Doc Hutchison's OmahaHiLo point count system email me at the address above.
Winning OmahaHiLo should be played to scoop pots. That's what Doc's system is set up to do. It awards points for high pairs and possible flush draws. For high only starting hands in which low is not possible, Doc suggests using hands with four cards above a nine. That may sound tight to some players, but think about it. Having only three high cards in the hand means you are going to war with only 3 good cards when your best opponents are using 4. Why be shorthanded and low on ammo when you are going to war.
In addition, he says you should consider a raise with 30 points. 20 points is the starting minimum. By seeing how many points you have you can adjust your play according to position, nature of game, possible raises to come, etc.
I still use the basics of the system today although I haven't looked at it in months. It pretty much is in my head now what makes a good starting hand that is likely to scoop a pot. It was excellent for me as a beginning player.
Here’s a resume of my first cardroom experience. I end up in a dealers choice game where Omaha and Omaha hi low split is almost always called on. Being a beginner, and knowing almost nothing of Omaha I got torn to shreds (I was expecting that, but I was definitely not prepared for the kind of game that was going on). The game was played pot-limit, with a minimum buy-in of approximately 30 dollars (I was playing in France). The problem was that I sat down with a 90 dollar stack, but around me almost everybody had at least two times my stack and played very very wild. Each time I wanted to play I had to go all-in. I ended up being to shy to commit all my stack when I should have, not wanting to end my first trip to a cardroom after a half hour. How should I deal with such a situation? I’m about to buy Ciaffone’s book on Omaha (seems like a good choice for a beginner) , but apart from that what is there to do in such wild games? Is a perfect knowledge of statistics and pot odds the only solution?
Play extremely tight preflop, especially in early position. When you're short stacked, be wary of calling a preflop raise with a drawing hand if your implied odds aren't good. When you do flop a mega-hand, you'll get massively paid off in a wild game. You don't need a perfect knowledge of statistics and pot odds, but you should learn the odds for a few common situations. In pot-limit Omaha-8, don't call on the flop with an A2 low draw and nothing else. In pot-limit Omaha High, play only hands with four connected cards, and never draw to a non-nut hand. If you're familiar with holdem, a major difference is that hands both preflop and on the river are much stronger in Omaha. Something like a pair of jacks with nothing else is usually not even worth seeing the flop with, and non-nut full houses and flushes should sometimes be folded.
I suspect Buzz didn't notice that there were two low cards on the board.
Dan - Thanks. You are correct.
Buzz
If I'm interpreting correctly, then what you are saying (and I agree) is that in Holdem, an average player is more likely to make the right play for the wrong reason, whereas in O/8 it generally requires correct reasoning in order to make the right play.
An alternative viewpoint would be that the EV difference between the right play and the wrong play is generally greater in O/8 than in Holdem. That is consistent with your statement (from another thread) that a player is more likely to be drawing dead in Omaha than in Holdem.
Another interesting theory is that the distribution curves of "talent" for the two games look considerably different. Further discussion of this idea would require meeting in person. I do plan on being in SoCal in early March (I live in TX).
Regards.
Maybe what I am about to ask is a lot, but I'd like for someone to describe what exactly point count systems for Omaha are, and if at all possible, give an example of a point count system. I've read some books on poker that are all very good (TOP, Ciaffone's book on Omaha, and a few others), but I haven't yet come across a point count system.
The truth is, I am not a fan of Omaha, and the biggest reason for this is the immense number of starting hand possibilities. In Texas Hold'em I know exactly what hands to play from every position, but in Omaha and Omaha Hilo 8 or better, I know that I am playing way too many hands.
I noticed a post on this message board which said something to the effect that point count systems are no good, and that using ones head is the best bet. I am pretty sure that this must be true at the highest levels, but still, I'd like to see what one looks like.
I have also noticed that a lot of poker writers are very protective about what they write (has anybody seen the poker FAQ and how it doesn't have starting hands for texas hold'em?). So, if it is too much to ask to just demonstrate a point count here or give me a link, at least let me know who I should be reading for this info.
Thanks for any responses.
Check out the computer program "Turbo Omaha High-Low Split for Windows" (Wilson Software). They describe several point count systems some of which are quite simple to under under playing conditions.
"... I'd like for someone to describe what exactly point count systems for Omaha are..."
Try:
http://www.homestead.com/ehutchison/OmahaSystem.html
"I noticed a post on this message board which said something to the effect that point count systems are no good, and that using ones head is the best bet."
I don't agree with all of the values as stated in the system but it's an excellent place for a beginner to start...then make your own adjustments after you get some experience.
"I have also noticed that a lot of poker writers are very protective about what they write (has anybody seen the poker FAQ and how it doesn't have starting hands for texas hold'em?)."
David Sklansky published a very good guide to starting Hold 'Em hands quite a few years back.
Hope this helps.
Point counts are somewhat useful for a teaching aid, I suppose, but I don't like them in general. The dynamics of starting hands in Omaha just don't lend themselves well to a rigid mathematical system of hand rankings.
If you study a few good point counts, you will learn a few things to get you started. For instance, in Omaha high a hand with a suited ace is usually playable. A hand with two aces is almost always playable. A hand with four big cards above an 8 is always playable. Etc. From there, the simple point count systems do a lousy job of ranking hands, and the complex ones are too cumbersome to use at the table.
Besides, rigid mathematical systems of any kind do a disservice to new poker players, because they inhibit the kind of fluid thinking one needs to do to take the game to a higher level.
Medium 6/12 game with 3 very loose players.
I was BB with 2x4x5c7c in a 5 player unraised pot. Flop is Ac 3c 8x. I bet the nut low + weak flush draw, 2 callers, including a very passive, very loose player (VPVL) who had been calling on the river with drek. Turn is the 9c. I bet, now thinking I might pick up the whole pot. VPVL calls. River is the Jc. I bet again, VPVL checks his cards, and puts in his first raise of the night.
This was a real mystery bet to me, I absolutely could not put him on a hand. He didn't raise the turn when the flush dropped, and he never made a move on the low. The best I could figure was that when he checked his cards on the river, he realized he had the double nuts. I just called. Does anyone think I should have 3 bet? I could easily be losing 3/4.
Play suggests 8Tc. I think 3-betting here has little expectation...the chances you are scooping/quartering him are very close to you getting quartered.
I would have 3 bet. You've got nut nut. If he has the straight flush you get your money back. If he has the SF AND nut low, you're only out six bucks, but from the way you describe him he could have seen a K high flush in his hand or even a straight.
So what did he have?
Actually, I would bet that DumDum had the King of clubs in his hand (his only club), and bet, thinking he'd just made the nut flush (when in reality he just made the nut nothing). Either that, or (equally stupid) he just made a straight, and doesn't perceive, or care about, the board's clubs. Reraise and scoop.
Fred The Shark - Perhaps you shouldn't have one bet on the river. Your low is easily duplicated and your flush is easily beaten. Then you get check-raised by VPVL! His first raise of the night, huh? I think you're quartered here.
Well, I would probably be quartered here, but maybe you are not. Are you a wild and wooly raiser who plays too many hands and bets like a maniac? What I mean is, what is your opponent's impression of you? Maybe he thinks you're full of it and is raising with less than the nuts for both high and low. That would seem too foolish on his part, but who knows?
No, you don't have another raise here, unless you are a maniac. However, if you are a maniac, raise away.
Buzz
Need more information about the player and his position relative to the other callers in the hand - it might explain not raising with nut flush. Alternatively, perhaps this player is afraid of board pairing on the river and so continues passive play until no more fear. Offhand it sounds like you played it fine. The key question is: When the player reexamines his hand on the river, what is the probability that this player would raise with only the nut low? If you estimate that probability to be above a certain threshold, then you should raise, otherwise call. I suspect the large majority of players would require more than the nut low for a raise, and most likely he just has nut high with OR without a low.
Steve - Huh? What is this, the dark side of the force?
I guess maybe the 49.3% is the same place as Marc's aces.
I still owe you a case of diet cokes, but now maybe I'll shake them up before I give them to you.
Buzz
I was playing in a dealers choice pot limit game with 1 1 blinds. I am in early position and the game was Omaha. I have played a lot of Hold em, but am quite new to Hold em. So I am counting on you guys for good hand anaysis. I was in early position. Only 7 players in the game. I am dealt AhAs10h3d. One limper in front of me. I limp. One limper behind and then a bet. We all call. The flop comes Jh 7h 7d. It is checked around. The turn comes 4s. Check in front. I check. There is a bet. Call. Call, all in. And then I call. The river comes 3h. I bet. Two callers behind me. Both respected players, so at that point I realized I must have lost. Should I have been out of the hand a long time before that? The player to my left turns over a pair of sevens and takes the large pot. Thank you for any advice. -Dan
with alot of people in, a flush is crap in the game if there is a pair on board. it may not have been a mistake to call on 4th for a small bet but on the end a check and fold is in order, unless you suspect something.
Furthermore.. Ray, is a raise pre-flop in order here? This hand is basically a 3-card hand (that 3 doesn't do much except get you in trouble when 542 flops), nut-suited, nut straight and AA.
Does it make sense to put pressure on hands early to try to drive out 77? And would it work? (I assume not in loose game, but I've never played Omaha-hi)
Dan,
post-flop, you should be thinking dump city unless it's a tight game (60% of people seeing flop isn't a tight game). ONE 7 beats you, as do 2 jacks... the flush draw became a LOT weaker.
Also, a question- these "respected" players who called your river bet- can I assume the quads was in the middle position? if not, s/he was an idiot for not raising...
in a tight game you may raise to get it headup with the limper. as the game gets looser you being out of position want to get in cheaper.
You should've re-raised before the flop. "One limper behind and then a bet. We all call."
You could've made it $20 to go; no way he(or probably anyone else) would've called. Take the ten bucks and move on. You don't have a hand that plays well against four opponents, IMO. You especially don't have a flop that plays well against four players...
Here are the percentages for this hand. I'll assume your hand KK23 rainbow and the board is unsuited as well.
This is based on a large 9 player simulation with all hands present to the end. The average win percentage is 11.1%.
On the deal your hand has a 14.85% win rate. On the flop this increases to 42.82%. On the turn it drops slightly to 34.61%. On the river it is down to 21.74%. It is a top 20% hand from the start and finishes in the top 10%. As for me, I can't live in fear of being beaten by quads. On the other hand, I know that losing to higher full house can happen often. In the long run, I'll call at the end every time unless I'm in against a player who never finishes with anything but the nuts.
Greg
Kevin L got it exactly right, he turned over the naked K of clubs, and I will henceforth think of this as the "Badger principle":
"Whenever there is a mystery in Omaha, lean toward assuming your opponent is making a mistake, because most players make mistakes most of the time."
I missed at least one big bet. When I think about it now it perfectly explains his play. He didn't start to bet until he thought he had the nuts!
so here's my situation...
The game is 6-12 stud. There is one fairly solid player at the table, but he lets his ego get in the way. My 2nd hand at the table I hit a full house on the river to beat his flush; he's been playing at me hard ever since. About 2hrs later I catch a dream hand. I started with rolled up 10's, my board looks like I'm going for a straight to the Jack, and I catch the case 10 on the river. I'm definitely winning this pot. The solid, angry guy bets into me with a probably flush. Behind me are three players, one with what looks like aces up (I was really hoping she filled up), and two straight draws. None of the players is particularly tough... I figure they'll call if they made what it looks like they made if I only call, but probably some will fold if I raise. The problem is I can probably get 3 overcall bets or if I'm lucky get all three out with a raise at which time the raising has no limit with angry guy. A raising war with this guy would prove extremly profitable, but since I can't guarantee getting out all three players, should I just go for the overcalls (BTW I imagine that even if these players haven't hit their straights they'll probably call with as little as two pair) So what's the call? Go for the overcall or go for the small chance of a NL raising war and risk losing a couple of big bets.
Any comments would be appreciated.
Supes
PS at this table the raising is capped at 3 if more than two people are in the pot, but is unlimited with just two.
Supes:
Raise. Calling here is not an option. If you raise and get caller(s) S/A will reraise and you can cap. If no callers you are heads up against S/A with no cap. Its a win-win situation but only if you don't kill the action by calling the first bet.
Fred M
Ditto, sounds like you've got passive people to your right and the only way to have a chance at the big $$ is to raise.
dfgfdgdgdgdfg
Sorry for the above post my son got to the computer.
Is your son by any chance Paul Feeney??
dfgfdgdgdgdfg
did fairly great for doing good dog gone done good do for group
For SammyB
If you call, Mr. Angry may get off the hook for only one bet. Unacceptable. Raise, and he'll reraise out of pique, and you can reraise and show him your hand, at which point he will turn purple, steam will start issuing from his ears, and his head will spin around several times. Not to be missed!
Are you sure about the unlimited raises? In the places I've played, it only becomes unlimited if the round starts with only two bettors.
DJ
First thanks to everyone for resoponding... Kevin I particularly like your visual. Anyway, I usually play where 1 bet and 3 raises is the rule unless the hand only has 2 players active in the pot (although this does allow for unlimited raising if no one commits any chips to the pot except 2 people even if others fold.) This particular table allowed for 1 bet and 2 raises... Imay have misrepresented that in the original post. I think with a 4 bet possible the best play would always be to raise, but with only 3 bets that may not be the case... No?
supes
In three-blind, dual limit lowball games (LA style), when is it correct to break a pat 9 versus one opponent who draws one card?
Well, there are pat nines and there are pat nines. With 98652 I just grit my teeth and stand pat. With 932A Joker I would draw almost regardless. The trouble with weak pat hands in double-limit lowball games is the reverse implied odds of playing them as pat hands. You HAVE to be prepared to call one (double) bet after the draw, therefore you are always laying 2-1 when you raise with the intention of standing pat, and then calling (or check-calling) after the draw. I HATE passive situation like this, so I will break if I feel I am drawing better than the other guy. The above applies only to double-limit; in single limit I just rap pat and sweat.
Suppose you open-raised from late position with a 9-7 or 9-6, getting head-up with the BB who draws one card. You draw a card because you likely have the best draw? Even without the joker?
If you stand pat and the BB bets into you, do you really have to call? Is it common for players to bluff into a pat raiser?
Thanks, MJS
players do bluff against the pat hand in the bigger games. you will actually lose money to the one card draw after the draw because you are forced to call at times and pay him off. if you do draw a card you make money after the draw by being last to bet and can make a double bet when you both hit. of course you must be drawing much better than him to break. you lose before the draw because you break a hand that may have over a 2 to one edge. alot depends on how the player against you plays.
Ray,
You might lose money by sometimes paying off, but not more money than you will win with your entire range of pat hands. I regularly play with people who think it is a strong play to bet into pat hands when they draw one from in front. Once you've seen a player for awhile, you pretty much get a good feel for his betting tendencies after the draw. I know a couple players that I tend not to play my pat nines against when they are the big blind. Throwing away pat nines in these certain situations isn't giving up too much IMO. Too bad you can't train your crew of "Pendejo's de Zee" to play lowball.
Am I correct in assuming those BB players against whom you tend to muck pat 9's are loose-aggressive?
No, they are tough players who won't raise with very good draws or better pat hands than my nine from the BB. They are aggressive after the draw, betting out their made hands and bluffing optimally. There is simply easier ways to make a profit in those games than engaging in confrontations with them with "sitting duck" hands.
You wrote: "you must be drawing much better than him to break." Would a 9-6 without the joker qualify (assuming you raised and the BB just called)? ...9-6 with the joker?
You also wrote "alot depends on how the player against you plays." Against what sort of opponent would you be more inclined to break a 9?
Thanks
against one that never bluffs and doesnt bet alot of close hands id stand pat and fold to a bet. against one that bluffs properly and bets his eights and pays off a raise and will call your bet on the end or wont call your bet on the end then a break may be right. all the factors of course dont have to be present. id stop around 96 or 96j. but you have to be good to make this play and able to exploit a weakness. if you thought he might be drawing dead you would stand pat and bet or call. i could be totally wrong on this so disregard anything here i said if in doubt.
When it comes to lowball, I am in doubt about nearly everything!
Open raising from late position makes the chance that you are on a weak pat hand greater. Good players will bet into you more frequently based on this fact alone. I am slightly more inclined to pay off with my rougher pat hands when someone takes one and bets into me when I come in for a raise in late position and stayed pat. It is also a pretty good time to make a bluff-raise when they bet into you since they are likely to be betting more marginal holdings themselves.
IMO, never. As soon as he draws one, your hand is the favorite. I might make an exception if I were the BB and the sb had limped and I hadn't raised. The sb would have to be a particular type of player who I felt I had good control over before I decided not to raise in the BB anyway. If there is more money in the pot than the bare minimum for two players, I'd never draw with a pat 9.
not even 9321j. and give up the chance to win 2 bets on the end.
Recently I was in a lowball tournament. I was in the big blind with 9642jkr. I was raised by a fairly good player from middle position. I reraised myself allin and stood pat. If I have chips to bet after the draw I would break this nine. The original raiser broke his pat 96123. He made a seven. Any comments?
since you were all in he maybe should have stood pat with you if he believed you would make the play with weak hands.
Ray,
If I have 9-3-2-A-jkr. and a player draws one card in front of me, I am not giving up the chance to win two bets on the end. If he bets, I might call, but if he checks, I might bet for value and get paid off. With a 9-8 ot a 9-7, I might not be willing to value bet after the draw. The smoother the nine, the more reason to bet it or call with it.
I *am* giving up any opportunity to raise a bet into me. Against certain players I will break that nine nothing. I will do it when the player in front is very "live" and might be willing to go too far with a six or smooth seven. I've had players go six bets with their straight sixes against me. For them, breaking for future action makes sense.
The concept of being more inclined to break the 9 in an unraised pot makes good sense to me. Am I correct in assuming that the type of SB limper against whom you might just call and break your 9 is a very loose player...one who will value-bet mediocre hands and pay-off when you raise (and preferably won't bluff frequently)?
Yes. Except these type of players *DO* bluff frequently.
Glad I got one right...perhaps there's hope for me! :-)
This is my friend John's first post to 2+2.
I've been telling him about this forum for a year now, but he was really impressed with the quality and quantity of the responses to his question.
John has no Hold'em game at all, but he is better at Omaha than I am. He still plays too many hands, though. Now I gotta get him a copy of the Zee book on O/8.
Hey Abe,
Don't you mean WTFO?
vince
I wanted to post this before I see the other opinions, so if it's redundant, I apologize. I don't think you should have been in the hand in the first place from that position with a raise and knowing there was a good chance of another raise, which there was. Now to see what the other experts say!
Interesting, by the way I misread your position but I still don't like the hand unless it's basically free.
I appreciate everyone's response to my question. I guess I play too loose, because I think I would always play KK23. I am glad most of you concur I played it right(or close to) after the flop. The button behind me is a true maniac. I have seen him raise all the way to the river and muck his cards against two pair after they lay it down.
In the January 7th International edition of CP, Mike Caro says you should not raise to get people out when you start with big pairs in LL games. His reasoning revolves around the rake as a percent of your win. I've e-mailed Mike that he hasn't been on a 1-5 table for a long time. He says you want the calling stations in against you. I say you want them out because they don't think about what they do, they stay in with anything and draw out so that your stack goes down. I'd rather be head to head with a good player then an underdog against multi drawing hands. Most of the writings say get 'em out and win it NOW. Some comments from this great group would be appreciated.
its not that you want them out, you raise so that it cost them alot to play so they dont get very good odds to draw out with their bad hands.
I still feel that LL 7CS (no ante) is a trapping style game which requires raising to get others who have worse hands to play along with bad pot odds. I really feel that many people call with nothing in the begining, just for the action. When I raise with a big pair in LL it is usually to get the poorer hands to donate, and if they fold--that's fine. In a 10-20 game, if I am next to the bring-in or the first to speak after the bring-in (i.e people to my left have folded), I will raise 85% of the time with an Ace showing and no other aces up and about 65% of the time when someone else has an Ace showing. In a LL game, I usually just call unless I am last to speak when I will often raise.
What do you think, Ray? (si or no?)
as to the % times you should raise or play that is more dependent on your take of whether or not you are likely to be called. if its just me and the bring in left ill raise almost 100% of the time unless he is an automatic caller and then will raise with my good hands.
"His reasoning revolves around the rake as a percent of your win."
A good reason to play 5-10 instead.
"Most of the writings say get 'em out and win it NOW."
Win what now, the $1 bring-in?
"I've e-mailed Mike that he hasn't been on a 1-5 table for a long time. He says you want the calling stations in against you. I say you want them out because they don't think about what they do, they stay in with anything and draw out so that your stack goes down. I'd rather be head to head with a good player then an underdog against multi drawing hands."
It depends on a couple of factors: are your cards live, do you have a 2-flush, will they pay you off if you pair your door card, will they play total trash if they can get in cheaply? If you have dead jacks, you don't want to face (5K)5 and a live ace-high 3-flush. If have a high pair and no one has entered the pot, you don't want to risk just winning the $1. It's better to usually raise $2 in early position with a big pair - this way you charge the calling stations without knocking everyone out. Then on fourth street you bet the full $5 to narrow the field.
"Win what now, the $1 bring-in?"
I don't know what it's like in most places, but here in california, if you steal, they take out the rake, and you win $4.
Jim, ever play poker with nate lewis?
I know of only one nate lewis, and that is my freshman chem teacher, Nate Lewis at Caltech. Is this who you are talking about?
that's the one. he taught freshman chem? he's a super star in solid state/polymer chemistry. Good teacher??
I suppose I'll respond for James, since he probably never attended more than one Nate Lewis lecture...
He's an okay teacher - I don't know how great you can be with Freshman Chem anyhow...
The real question is, Good Poker player??
In Atlantic City, 1-5 is spread without an ante. There's just a $1 bring-in, and the game is raked rather than a fixed drop. If you "steal", you just win the buck.
YOu have never played at the Sands where 1 to 5 has a quarter ante ($2 in pot to start) and the $1 bring in. If I have an Ace or King showing (even if I don't have the pair)in late position I'll raise either $3 or $5 usually this leaves only one player which I think gives you th ebest odds to win the hand. I believe playing slow with big pairs in the long run will los eyou money. That said I probably raise 80-90% of the time and limp in the rest. I appreciate all the discussion and LL play is interesting but too many times people without a clue score while I'm struggling eventhough I'm playing well. All th emore reason to get off thes etables and into higher limits. The Kount
Down For The Kount,
Sorry couldn't refuse that one. Your pos'n in the hand if your last to bet and 4 or more have limped in I would make it $3. If someone has already made it $3 I would make it $8. If early pos'n I would just call the bring in and hope for a raise. If raised reraise maximum. Middle pos'n I would make it $3. If raised I would either call or reraise.
Paul On The Ropes
I agree. Once there is decent money in the pot, you shift gears and play to knock players out rather than trap them.
At these limits it is difficult to find a table where stealing on third street is at all possible, so I would not worry about the lack of calling stations after a raise. This is certainly true at fixed limit, so I would imagine that so long as you don't bet the 5$, as Ray sais above, you'll get your callers, AND they'll be throwing in money incorrectly.
"At these limits it is difficult to find a table where stealing on third street is at all possible, so I would not worry about the lack of calling stations after a raise."
If you are stealing on third in a 1-5 game, you should find another 1-5 game.
My point is that I don't think such tables exist.
I read the same article by Caro regarding LL poker with a great deal of interest. I play budget 7CS and the bottom of the food chain offers its peculiar challenges.
At these limits there does not appear to be any one strategy or tactic which covers the majority, forget all, or even a substantial percentage of situations. Slow play, fastplay, sandbagging, etc., are all efficacious in different situations, circumstances, and games. To me there appears to be much more of a mix of approaches to poker at LL then there might be at the higher limits, where "classic poker theory" is employed. There are certainly many more dilletantes (I include myself here) at the LL tables (they wear the T-shirt that says "I don't need no stinking pot odds") and with the mix of serious and semi-serious and quasi serious players, LL poker becomes a promiscous stew in which a strange chemistry occurs that resists any one poker approach, premise or philosophy.
My rambling thoughts having been stated, my interpretation of Caro's point is that you will win more money in the long run keeping the weaker hands in than you will lose because there are more people in the hand to beat you. Maybe this is an oversimplification, but it is how I read it. (If I remember correctly, Caro justifies this premise based on his "computer simulations".) It is an interesting point and should be reflected on....but for now, based on my experience, I won't accept it as gospel.
I am encouraged by this discussion on LL poker. I have read all the posts and most have offered considered and thoughtful insights which will be helpful to me in my goalto improve as a player.
Thanks
Richard
and I can't limp with Aces -- even at 1-to-5, which seems to be what Caro is advocating. Unless the game is so tight that I'm *sure* the raise will fold everyone.
I am looking for some information regarding odds in 7cs. Specifically, I am looking for the odds of completing flush draws for the following hypothetical:
Three to a flush to start off with, catching another flush card on 4th street. What percentage of the time, at that point, will you make your flush by 7th street? For everyone of your flush cards that you have seen out how much does the percentage go down?
Assuming you don't hit on 5th street what are the percentages?
Assuming you don't hit on 6th street what are the percentages?
very rough but i guess you dont need exact by your post so
even money
2 to 1
4 to 1
There is a book that details exactly the kind of information you're asking about: "Seven Card Stud Poker" by Konstantin Othmer.
Pot limit omaha, i hold: 2h3x10hJh >> flop comes Ah5x8h. The pot is 100.00, 5 way action. im seat 5. check to me, I bet 30.00 caller to left (seat 7), raise (seat 8)>>100. fold, fold. I call, seat 7 calls. the turn brings a 9d. giving me a straight draw and flush draw. I bet all in, I have 330.00 left. call, call. river brings 7h giving me nut low and jhigh flush, ace on the board. I 3 quarter. Did i make the right plays?
Another hand Ive got the Ah3h7xjx and the flop comes 3hjh6h I check my nut flush, seat 8 bets 80. seat two calls. I raise pot (380.00). i get a call from seat 7, he has trip 6's, and a 7c8c. seat 2 folds. turn comes 7x river aced, which would have counterfeited my A 3, but I would have won anyway if i slow played seat 2, a scoop.
On the first hand, I might reraise there. Except for AA, there are no probable high hands on that board, so it's likely that one of the others has 23 also and you want to knock him out.
On the second hand, I would bet out the flop rather than check-raise. Here you don't want to lose the second player. If he has A2 and a lower flush or weak redraws, he might call a bet but not a check-raise.
"PL O-8 is the lamest game ever. This is a contest in who plays tightest."
-Iceman
The first hand, the only thing you did wrong was to play it at all. 2-3-j10s is an awful hand; it makes third-best lows, fourth-best flushes, straights that cough up half the pot to lows even when they DO hold up, etc. etc. Not even worth a call in the small blind IMHO. The second hand was also barely playable but you got a miracle flop. The check of the nut flush on the flop was horrible. You give bottom two pair a chance to stick around for nothing, an overpair can spike trips on the turn and have a reason to hang around and maybe beat you, etc. etc. You must have been playing with some true idiots for them not to realize what your hand was, considering the board, when you checkraised. The initial check shouldn't have gained anything (although it happened to in this instance) and it could have easily cost you the whole pot. You DON'T want to risk giving free cards in Omaha!
These hands are good examples of ones that a reliable point count system would have rejected, particularly in a pot limit game where being TIGHT, TIGHT, TIGHT is important. I'm sure this may not make sense since you got great flops with both hands and won. But still.....the long range expectation with such play is not favorable.
2h3xThJh has a win rate of about 13.5% (in a 9 player game). More important it is better than 75% of the possible starting hands. In my opinion, if it doesn't cost a lot to see the flop, don't fold before you do. A flop with an A, non-counterfeited, with a low redraw makes this a hand that you play to the river. No A on the flop and you can toss this one away.
Greg
Last week I'm in a pretty good 15-30 lowball game at the Normandie. I call a late raise from my BB and am head's up with a guy I've played against for twenty years or more. I draw one card to 8-5-4-Jkr and put a 2 on it. He stands pat. Now, this guy stays pat with a lot of rough hands so I figure that my 8 is probably better than his hand and I bet out. He raises me. When he raised, I knew my eight was beaten, but I reraised anyway. He spent about two minutes crying about his terrible luck, showed a 7-5-3-2-A and threw it away. I was in shock at his mucking that strong a hand. When I re-raised, I was hoping that he might have a 7-6 and muck it. It started me to thinking that I better reevaluate my image in this game. If our situations had been reversed, I'd have paid him off just on the strength of not having been re-raised before the draw. If I'm head's up before the draw, even out of position, I'm raising with any draw that can beat a slick 7-5 if made. I think his fold was super bad in this situation, and showing the table what he'd laid down made it doubly bad. Comments?
as you know there are 23 hands that beat you and 10 of them i think are 76,s. obviously if one 2 more bets win the pot its a correct play since there is dead money out there as well. but you must be sure he will lay down a seven six smooth.
1. I can't believe you tried this play. 2. I can't believe it worked. I give your play a "D" and your opponent's play a "Z-minus". Given the pot odds to call one last bet, you couldn't have reasonably expected him to dump a 7-6. His actually dumping a 7-5 smooth is just plain silly (and I don't like his first raise either since it exposed him to this "problem"; there aren't many hands you would call his raise with, and lose, anyway, so his first raise is kind of silly too).
Kevin,
I disagree about there not being many hands I would call his raise with that wouldn't be beaten by a 7-4-3-2-A. Maybe where you play the players never get out of line, but they do here in So. Cal.
Tonight, against the same player, I'm on the button with a forced kill and he makes it $60.00 to go. It is passed around to me and I call. I've got 10-9-8-6-jkr. He raps pat and I rap pat behind him. He pauses for about a minute and then checks. I bet. He thinks for a minute, plays with his stacks and finally tosses his hand away. I decide to show my hand and put him on tilt. It works. I'll see him tomorrow in the same game.
The most interesting thing about this play is your opponent's fold. I hope that you are bluffing him at many opportunities. If he will make the fold he did, I suspect that he will also routinely fold hands like Jacks and Queens, and perhaps even bad tens (after he has drawn one card).
Mason,
See my post above. I am going to have to play this guy rather straightforwardly for the next few sessions now that I've deliberately opened his nose.
Any good book available? Thanks.
--Tom
not too many around as far as I can find. If no one responds, I'll photocopy a section from an out of print book by Moorehead (c.1968) which I have. Drop me a note at my e-mail address with your address, and I'll send in in about a week, even to Finland.
I have Ray Zee's book "H/L split poker for advanced players" and find it to be a superb teaching aide. The one thing I don't see is any point count systems. Ray would you comment on this and if it's not asking too much comment on Hutchinson's point count system as well as, if any others you might care to mention.
Check out Wilson's software for a counting system for omaha.
Where would I find Wilson's software?....Thanks
if a point count system keeps you off tilt then fine. but the problem i see is that you need to change for every situation at hand. style of game , size of antes, etc. for opening requirements. for calling and raising its way too much for it to work. hand values change so much depending on other factors to rate them by number. just learn the hands you want to play in what positions and adjust to the players. using it in my opinion will hold you at a beginning level of play. i dont know hutch. system at all.
I have posted the complete version of this question on the General Theory Forum (maybe it would have been better here) and was hoping for input from all the Omaha H/L experts who post on this part of the forum. So if you have any thoughts please go on over and throw in your two cents.
Regards,
Rick
Hi Rick
I can give you the Northern California point of view.
Right now, the Outpost in San Ramon regularly spreads 10-20 Omaha8 with a 1/5 kill on Friday and Saturday nights. Sometimes Thursdays. The games can go all night, it depends on the players. The drop is a live $5 on the button. (1$ for jackpot) Occasionally, the games can be somewhat dead, especially on Saturdays after the Omaha8 tournament, but usually it can be fairly good. I think that this is the only regular mid-limit game in the Bay Area. Some people think that this game take to much money out of the other games (it is a small club), but I think this game has staying power.
Bay 101 in San Jose had a 40-80 split game this spring for a few weeks (once a week or so). Sometimes with a 1/2 kill. This game died when the WSOP started. I think the higher limit players were experimenting and in training for the WSOP mixed games. Bay 101 also tried to get at 10-20 game on Fridays but could not sustain it. Now they have put 9-18 on the board, but I don't know if this game has ever gone. They are trying, but don't have the player base. Besides, the 4-8 with a 1/2 kill game is too juicy (usually) to pass up.
Lucky Chances in Colma has a 5 and 5 blind potlimit Omaha8 game on Tuesdays in conjuction with their Omaha8 tournament. I think it has a $7 per 1/2 hour time charge. It can be hard to get in this game if you are not on the list before it starts. I am not sure it is worth it some nights.
And that's about it. There used to be mid-limit games in Petaluma, but I haven't been there in years.
David,
Thanks. I hope to get up north next year. My only experience was at Garden City about ten years ago so I am really out of touch with what is going on in the Bay Area.
Regards,
Rick
Rick, regarding your comments on O8 regulars' behavior towards "chum" on the Theory board, check this out. 20-40(30-60 Kill) at the Mirage. I've got the kill under the gun. 5-6 callers, plus the blinds. I raise with A-2-3-K double suited, everyone calls. Flop comes K-7-6 rainbow. SB checks, BB (late 20s, wannabe pro/hotshot, drunk and on major tilt) bets right out, I call(maybe should've raised?), 4 callers, SB folds. Turn offsuit 10; BB bets, everybody calls. River another 10; BB bets, I call, everyone else folds(one guy, tourist, takes awhile). BB: "Whatta ya got?" Me: "I've gotta King". Tourist: "Oh, Shit." BB: Turns over 4-5-6-7 rainbow and screams "How could you call?". I've never seen him since (Fall '96).
FWIW I think the Bellagio 15-30ers are a pretty decent bunch and I've rarely, if ever, seen anyone get out of line towards a tourist, unless it's someone like Hotshot above. Now, out of line towards each other....
Bill,
Good Story. The last time I played the game was still at the Mirage (just before Bellagio opened). That crew did seem OK against the drop ins. Since I don't get out there much, I can pretend to be a tourist for the first few hours :-).
The worst behavior I have witnessed was in the middle limit game in Los Angeles when it went, first at the Bike and later at the Commerce. Hopefully, a decent middle limit game can get going again.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. Badger had some good analysis in the theory forum. If you have any comments, please add your two cents.
Steve,
You are absolutely correct. It was a mistake! I alluded to the fact that this guy and I have a history of playing that goes back more than twenty years. By showing him my hand, I have cost myself money. I sure hope he is smart enough to realize that I wouldn't have shown him that bluff if I ever planned to do it again. (Which I do) The lowball players that are left are a hardened, crusty, evil-tempered and mannered bunch, with a few exceptions. I'm only planning on playing a total of 75 hours of lowball for the whole year and 90% of the time left to play this year will be in the 30-60 at the Commerce. If you play more than 40 hours of lowball with these guys, you start to become just like them, hence the showing of the bluff. BTW, don't you play lowball anymore?
Was playing 3-6 Omaha high last night, ten handed. All but one one player calls the blind. SB raises, and BB 3 bets it. I was curious, is there any Omaha hi hand that is worth 3 betting pre-flop?
Once a player has called at this level, very few people will fold to further raises. True to form, even after a mid-position player capped it pre-flop (limp re-raising the 3 bettor), only one person dropped.
I figure a hand would have to be much stronger than other hands to want to 3 bet (or 4 bet) pre-flop, and my understanding is the relative value of Omaha hands is pretty close. What hand is worth such aggressive betting from the blinds?
Thanks,
PRC
If you've got 9 callers in the hand, then there are LOTS of Omaha hands that are worth 3-betting.
Forget trying to 'thin the field'. Most premium Omaha hands are hands that have multiple ways to make the nuts, and with hands like that you would like as many callers as you can possibly get.
With 9 callers trapped for two bets already, I'd 3-bet with hands like AAKJ, 9TJQ, KKQT, 789T, TTJQ, etc. These are hands that win maybe 12-20% of the time, so you're getting a pretty big overlay.
In his book on high low poker Ray Zee says most raising in Omaha/8 is for knocking people out, not for building the pot. McAvoy?Clouthier in their book Champship Omaha say most raises are for building the pt not for knocking people out!!! Who is right?
They both are right.
In a ring game, whether raising gets more money into the pot or knocks people out of the pot may depend, at least in part, on the level of play. At the lower levels, my experience is that raising generally gets more money in the pot.
In a tournament, raising during the early part of the tourament usually has the effect of getting more chips in the pot. However, during the later stages of the tournament, raising more frequently has the effect of knocking people out of the pot.
Buzz
i think they are talking about straight high. and when i say most i dont mean all. plus im always right unless David or Mason override me:)
See page 66 in the high-low section of their book.
On. Pg 58 of 7CSFAP-21 S,M, and Z advocate calling an early raiser if you are last to act w/ the best pair. This is in a situation where there have been several callers already and your raise will not get anyone heads up. I understand that you certainly like playing pairs against fewer people, but at the moment I am leading, and if my cards are live I think that a raise here qualifies as a value bet. I also like it because bets on later streets are more likely to thin the feild. If a hand goes unimproved on fourth street, and is bet into, think they will fold more often beleiving that they will have to pay another raise as well.
Thanks for any input.
-james H.
In the games you're considering, the 3rd street raise will make thinning the field less likely, not more. First of all, the pot will be bigger, so your opponents will be less likely to fold. More importantly, your passive opponents will almost certainly check to you on fourth, at which point your single small bet will fail to knock anyone out. Your chances of thinning the field improve if you save the raise for fourth. You end up putting the same number of bets in the pot either way.
In loose games I see the point, you're giving someone correct pot odds to call later, and they will call etc. The thing is that although you are not favored to win (You win less than 50% of the time) You are the one most likely to win out of all the other players. Add to that the fact that you are live, and I like the hand.
The fact that you are giving other people pot odds is tricky though. although your odds of winning the hand go down, what about your expected value? I haven't done the calculation.
Finnally, if you can in fact knock them out on fifth street with a raise here, the fact that they have already put in this money is super good for you.
This kind of play is very situation dependant, so it's definately subtle.
Several points. If you are bet into on fourth street and raise, you end up putting the same number of bets in the pot, at a time when you have more information. (Perhaps everyone but you pairs their doorcard and you are no longer the favorite.) Also, you are unlikely to knock people out with a raise on 5th unless someone bets into you, which they will be unlikely to do if you raise 3rd and bet 4th.
he has to act first with split kings, unless someone pairs.
scott
Good point, but you still have more information about which cards & suits are live.
the issue is live cards. when your cards are live raise. otherwise, wait. or if you have a live 2 str8 or a 2 flush then raise. raise either when all 5 of your "outs" are available or when 4 are and you have some other out.
scott
OK, I think we're arguing for the same thing. I was assuming a hand which plays better against a limited field, in which case the 4th or 5th street raise is correct. But I agree if you're going to make a hand which will hold up, by all means raise.
James, I agree with you, it is a value bet. You may get bets from three flushes or three straights, 3/4 of whom will miss on fourth street putting them in bad position. You may also get a reraise from the early raiser if he, too, wants to thin the field. Faced with calling two bets, most draws will fold. Either way you come out ahead.
DJ
jame H.,
Ex: Third st. #1 6c8h/4c bring in folds to raise, #2 7s8s/Qs calls & calls raise, #3 Kd9d/Jd raises, #4 TcTh/Jh calls, 5/5c,6/9s,7/6h fold. You Kh7d/Ks seat #8 you call.
How far are you ahead in this example raiser has no D's out one of your K's and one of the J's.
This example is not that far-fetched and if one of 5,6, or 7 have another one of your K's.
paul
I sit down to the game yesterday afternoon in seat #3, my same rival is in seat #5. Over the past three sessions, I've raised him and gotten him to lay down and show a 7-5-3-2-A, and then bet him off a pat hand by staying pat behind him in a kill pot with 3 bets each before the draw and showing a 10-9-8-6-jkr after he had folded. The man is glaring at me as I wait for my chips and the big blind. I am expecting a lot of play from him today.
He raises my BB, everyone else folds and I look at 7-4-3-A-K and just call, drawing one card. He takes one card behind me. I catch a 6 and bet out and he raises me. I probably would have laid the hand down if it had been another player, but, given our recent history, I decide to pay him off. He spreads his hand and says "rough seven". He has a straight seven. I take the pot and he gets up and leaves. The game gets worse quickly so I cash out with a $255 win and go read the new Cardplayer in my car for an hour or so.
I come back in an hour or so and my "pal" is back in the game. He is sitting in seat #3 now and I'm in seat #7. After about 10 minutes of nothing much happening, I pick up a pat 6-4 with the joker in a kill pot when I'm UTG. I raise to 60, my "buddy" makes it 90 and everyone else folds including the killer. I make it 120 and he calls. I rap pat, he raps pat, I bet, he calls. I don't know what he had, but it didn't win 'cause he didn't show. He left shortly after, actually booking a win for the session. I left about an hour later myself, $344 ahead for this second session. ($240 of it from that one hand)
This is a tougher game than it sounds. Most of the players in it are far better lowball players than I. Luckily, I'm able to play at many different "speeds", and they never know which one I'm currently playing at. I only have a few more hours to go in it before my lowball hours quota is used up for the year. Unless something terrible happens in the last 6 hours of play, I will have averaged more than 2BB's an hour from this year's 50 hours of play.
How many people can play draw or lowball at a table? I've heard that seven or eight can, but what happens in a loose game where everybody stays and draws, and there aren't enough cards to go around? This is question that has come up in my home game. How do the CA cardrooms handle this situation?
Thanks.
Eight handed is the max. On the draw, top card is burned and people draw. Dealer puts discards in pile as she goes. When there is only one card left, it is never given out, all the discards except those of the players yet to receive cards, are shuffled along with the initial burn card and the bottom card.These cards, after another burn card are delivered to the remaining drawing players.
d
Too bad none of the places in AC play it anymore. We used to have a 10-20 game at Showboat then the Trop, but it dried up. There was a core group of 3-4 very good players. Every once in a while we would have some old timers play. Some of the old timers were excellent and we all were taught a lesson. Casinos do not make much rake so the game does not get encouraged.
If you have a pair of aces on third street, one of your aces up, and there is a good chance a raise will leave you head up against a three card low but that a limp may allow a weaker high to play, should you make the raise?
I always raise with a pair of aces; playing high in 7 stud 8 is a scary situation, those lows turn into 2 pairs, str8's and flushes.
Best to raise and limit the field.
3-6 Omaha last night.
I was holding Kh3h5sJc in the big blind and 6 players see the flop for just one bet.
The flop is 4h8hKc.
It checks around to the cutoff, a tight player (this is the second hand I've seen him play in about 45 minutes), who bets. Button and sb fold. I call (good move?) and one other player calls.
The turn is 7s and the cutoff bets again. I'm pretty sure he's holding A2 and I still have top pair and a [non-nut] flush draw. I don't have any shot at low, but I still call. Is this call correct?
The other player folds and the river is 5h, giving me a flush. I call his bet and he turns over the A2 low and an Ace-high flush, which made me feel like I should have folded earlier. Any comments are welcome.
~DjTj
When you are chasing, it's better to be chasing the nuts, and best to be chasing a scooper. To do that with this hand you'd need to catch the Ah and a deuce, runner runner. That's too much to ask for. I'd probably fold this on the flop.
In my opinion, the right play is determined by the fact that the better plays correctly (for these low limit games.)
The tight player should be counted on to have A-2 and the nutflush draw, or a set of Kings with that flop once he comes out betting. Since you know you don't stand a chance at the low, you have to figure that your only out is the flush, and that flush will (if it is good) most often take only half the pot. Already having a King in your hand reduces greatly the chance that the tight player flopped three kings, so you have a non-nut draw to half the pot. The pot (if you could scoop) offers you 7-1 odds on the flop, but we know your low will (almost) never be good, and that with two shots at making the low, you can cut your odds in half. On top of that, with your draw not being to the nuts, and you having basically no other shot at a quality except for running jacks, I would say you have a marginal fold on the flop. I always also feel that with these tight players and a two-low card flop, they are almost guaranteed to have the A-2 (or A-3 or 2-3 depending on what is on the board) and that therefore chances are good that they also have the nutflush draw--you know they have an Ace of some suit.
The nice thing about these low limit omaha games is that even the winning players play in a very obvious way. If one of the usual fish bets, I think you may want to call if most of the other players had folded--It would be easy for them to be betting 8-7, but with the rock betting, it's best to assume that they have the goods.
(22)K62, (66)K62, (KK)K62, (AA)K62, (6h2h)Kh6c2s, (K6)K62, or (K2)K62. If this game had a $10 ante, a good player with that ace would make that third street raise with several hands - an ace-high 3-flush, a hidden pair, or aces. Given the large range of possible raising hands and the high ante, a player with (22)K or (66)K might not so easily fold to that raise on third (although I certainly would, since this hand is much weaker 3-way). (AA)K is unlikely, unless the ace was held by a maniac, and the player with (AA)K just called to trap him into firing a few times with nothing. Two pair also seems unlikely, since an aggressive player would almost always raise on third with kings. It's likely that he has trips.
The player with the ace almost certainly didn't start with the ace-high 3-flush, since he would have stopped betting earlier. So he probably had either a hidden pair or aces.
The pot is $530, and the player with the king has to call $80. It will cost another $80 on sixth to get to the river, at which time the pot will be $770. Calling the king down would be correct with aces if there was even a small chance that the player with the king did not have trips. With a hidden pair, you need considerably better odds, since it's likely you only have five outs twice over kings up. One problem with folding here is that it would encourage players to constantly take shots at you. While I doubt it would be correct to fold aces here, something like (55)A is drawing very thin against many likely holdings.
Easy, the ace had bare aces. The King had 2 pair. The aces should have done exactly what he did or tried a bluff, represented Aces up and re-raised.
Since the Player with the King is moderately aggressive he has got to have Trip Kings. Right? With only one higher card behind him he would have raised with a small pair in the hole, a three flush, a pair of Kings, or possibly a high Three Straight. The strategy behind this is to knock everyone out except the weak player.
The only thing that makes me wonder is the King raising on 5th. If he had Trips shouldn't he wait until 6th to Raise?
Of course even a Pair of Aces can't call if he is facing Trip Kings.
Now if this played out in a lower limit game I would have to consider that the King was actually a pair of Kings and on 4th or 5th made Kings up. If I had even a small pair with an Ace kicker I would have to call to the River.
Hopefully this isn't showing my Stud ignorance.
CV
Mason:
The limp call on 3rd, call on 4th and raise on 5th is not consistent with split Kings or hidden pair with undercard kicker. This pattern IS consistent with rolled up Kings. The play of the Ace is consistent with split aces that do not improve.
A respondent questioned the raise on 5th instead of 6th. Raise on 5th because the Ace might check 6th and the opportunity for a double bet is gone. Anyway the raiser might win it right there.
Another respondent questioned the laydown on the river. That's a good laydown. The betting pattern indicates Aces unimproved are dead meat. A few check-raises will slow down the player who decides to take shots at him.
Fred M.
"A heated debate arose in a home game I play in regarding which hand would win low between a hand with a pair of aces and a hand with a pair of deuces. Vociferous arguing ensued. I'm sure there must be a universally accepted rule regarding this situation, but I not only need the ruling, but also someplace I can go to PROVE this, other than "some guys I know from the Internet said so."
Thanks.
PS - I contended that the aces would be both hi and lo. I was roundly rebuffed by all at the table. Am I crazy? "
Rather than trying to find a rule book that answers the question, how about some simple logic? Ask your friends if A-2-3-4-5 is a straight. Assuming they say 'yes', ask what the *lowest* card in that straight is. If they answer 'deuce', give it up...you're drawing dead.
When would you all play 2-3-4-X in Omaha/8? I'm inclined to play it in all positions, especially without 2 raises, thinking that if an A-X flops I'm unlikely to get counterfeited; however if there is a bet and a raise or two, I believe the possiblilty of an ace flopping is unlikely, which would therefore make the hand pretty unplayable. Any comments?
He could have two pair, Kings up, and the As would have been correct to call, but that would be unlikely, as he would not have limped with a pair of Kings.
Or he could have a set of kings (the most likely probability) wired and the Ace should have thrown his hand away.
The Ace(s) should have pitched it on 5th.
The hand that Kh is representing is rolled up K's.
However, how likely would an expert player (who knows his opponent and knows that he can lay down unimproved aces) who started with a big three flush or three straight make a similar play? I may have already answered the question if this expert would not call with these hands on 3rd in the first place.
It seems the play of the hand and the departure of the other players may have freed up Kh to play more aggressively.
I think if you call on fifth and sixth (which is clearly a mistake if you suspect trips), you have to call on the end (cuz you didn't give him that hand).
Rolled Up
Paul
It appears his most likely hand by about 2 to 1 margin is two pair. Was the ace correct to call? Yes
in 7cs is it generally correct to check the river with medium strength hands the way it is in holdem?
against a draw the answer would of course be yes, but what about when its not clear opponent is on a draw and you think you probably have him beat.
i was checking here as in holdem, but i think i need to bet far more often, maybe most of the time.
brad
In 7CS it is fairly simple:
what will he call with? If he will call with a weaker hand bet it. The reverse is also true, if he will fold the better hand, bet it. Multiply by the odds of folding/calling , making/missing, and it becomes a simple EV calculation.
Only hand that sticks out is rolled up Kings. NO way he limps with a pair in this spot - he would raise.
If I am correct, there is a large ante in this game (at least as it is played in Gary, IN) I believe $10. This is further evidence for 3 kings. With this much in the pot, he's got to have a great hand to warrant letting others play. Dead wired aces probably doesn't do it, esp. since he would likely raise 3rd to invite a reraise from the ace.
Given that, I don't think the player with aces is correct to call.
I have been playing hold 'em for a little over a year now, and I'm beginning to get a good idea of what a loose game or a tight game looks like at the typical 10-player casino table:
When 2 to 3 players see the flop on average, it is a tight game. When 4 to 5 players see the flop, it is average. With 6 or more seeing the flop, it's loose.
I also think I know, roughly, what I can expect to make per hour in the long run when playing my best at typical tables:
Limit......%SeeFlop......BigBets/Hr......$/Hr
$3/$6......55%......2-3......$12-$18
$5/$10......45%......2......$20
$10/$20......35%......1......$20
These examples are with what I consider good tables and the earnings are with my less-than-optimal play, but it gives me a good idea of what table to play when I have a choice.
Anyway, I am pretty confident at table selection in hold 'em, but I have just started learning seven-card-stud and Omaha, and would like some advice from experienced players on selecting a good table.
Thanks, PoP
I don't play the game but here my thoughts and instincts anyway.(I assume you don't mind)
Since I'm no expert my instinct would be to muck this hand. Two players already entered and you have the majority of players still to act behind you with one of them being aggresive with an ACE up.
When raised I think you have a call because he is all-in
On fourth I'm not sure what to do. I think it would be better to check and see what develops on 5th. I like checking because I think if you move in now you will get called and I don't think you want that. I read the player with 7 3 for almost exactly what he got a low draw with an inside straight. I think you might only be a small favorite when heads up (if at all) add a third player who is all in and I don't like you situation at all. I think if you check now and he catches bad maybe you can move him out. Also if you catch bad and he catches good maybe you can save yourself some money.
Just my thoughts
"1rst question: should I have reraised all-in to try to push out the BB and his low hand and play for no more money against 2 aces or a good low ?"
QQ is a marginal hand in 7CS-8. In some situations it can be profitable, but it is easy to be trapped with this hand. When there is an ace left to act, I would be reluctant to raise there. QQ is in terrible shape against aces.
Even if he's an aggressive player, is he capable of reraising all-in on third street with (55)A or (24)A against a clear pair of queens? Most players would have to have aces to reraise here in pot-limit.
The pot is 770. Your action in that pot is 250 if you can knock BB out. If BB calls your all-in bet, you are almost certainly a major favorite over him on third street - a high pair is favored on third over a 3-flush or 3-straight, and is a major favorite over three low cards to an ace if two aces are out.
One problem with just calling is that many scare cards can hit on fourth and he can easily then bluff you out of the pot. Also, it allows him to escape if he does have an inferior hand and catches a blank.
I would have just called the 10, with the intention of not committing any more money to the hand unless either (1) I improve on the next card, or (2) everyone catches blanks. If there was no ace or king showing the situation would be different and I would play the queens much more aggressively. If the ace raised to 100 behind me, and the seven called, I would have folded. If I did raise to 100 and was reraised to 250 with another caller in the pot, I would definitely reraise all-in.
"2nd question: is it a check and call (or fold) situation ?"
If you bet, he'll call you unless he's paired. If you check, he'll probably bet all-in, and you'll call. There's no way you fold here. You only have to put in 650 into a pot of about 2100, he still has to qualify for low, and he probably has little or no high draw. If he is paired, and you give him a free card, he can easily outdraw you where he probably would have folded had you bet. If he does have a 4-low, he'll bet all-in anyway.
Other Poker Games
January 2000 Digest is provided by Two Plus Two Publishing and ConJelCo